Press Room

"Phyllis Bennis, experta en Medio Oriente y la relación de EE.UU. con esa región del Instituto de Estudios Políticos en Washington (IPS, por sus siglas en inglés), explicó a BBC Mundo que, en un ambiente de guerra civil, es muy difícil saber con certidumbre qué pasó y quién es responsable.

"'Ha habido acusaciones mutuas tanto del régimen como de los rebeldes sobre el uso de químicos. También hay que tener en cuenta la lógica de las fuentes que se utilizan para obtener la evidencia,' declaró la experta.

"'Reino Unido y Francia están exhortando a una mayor intervención y esto podría apoyar su causa. Lo mismo podría decirse de Qatar, Arabia Saudita y Turquía. Todos tienen sus razones para que Estados Unidos se involucre militarmente.'

"Para Bennis una intervención militar sería ilegal pues la autorización de una guerra sólo puede estar sustentada en una amenaza contra la seguridad nacional."

The original article was written in Spanish. Here, Bennis's comments are translated back into English.

"Phyllis Bennis, an expert on U.S.-Middle East relations at IPS, explained to BBC Mundo that amid a civil war, it's very hard to know with any certainty what happened and who is to blame.

"'There have been mutual accusations from the regime and the rebels regarding the use of chemical weapons. You also have to consider the sources that are bing used to obtain this evidence,' the expert said.

"'The UK and France are demanding more intervention and this strengthen their case. The same could be said of Qatar, Saudi Arabia,and Turkey. They all have their reasons for wanting the U.S. to get militarily involved.'

"For Bennis, military intervention would be illegal since teh authorization of a war can only be supported in the case of a threat against national security."

"'The government, the military and the police are very much on edge,' said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. 'They're anticipating violence and there's the possiblity that they could go looking for it.'"

But clearly, when we think about true growth, true opportunity, what is needed is to expand beyond extracting resources from Africa to actually building manufacturing processing, job creation opp's, on the Continent. And clearly, there needs to be a real fair process, you know, not so much the free trade as projected, but a fair trade, where the US ends the subsidies to its own corporations, and creates a level playing field where African, particularly small & med-size enterprises, can actually succeed.

So there is talk once again of a “new” US initiative in Israel-Palestine diplomacy. We have got a new secretary of state. John Kerry is shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Hopes are supposed to be rising again. 

Really? We are supposed to cheer the possibility that 21 years of failed US diplomacy might - just might - become 22? 

. . . But - if anyone inside is now peering outside the official Washington bubble to acknowledge the need for a different approach to Israel-Palestine diplomacy, that is all good. If anyone in the White House or State Department . . . begins to realise that doing the same thing over and over again, making the same failed claims that “the two sides have to sit together, both sides have to make compromises, only direct talks between the two parties can bring about peace” as if this were a negotiation between equals . . . rather than between a powerful, wealthy, nuclear-armed Occupying Power and an disempowered occupied people, that could mean the beginning of a new approach.