President Trump won the election on his promise to overthrow financial capitalism and restore productive capitalism.
From this standpoint, he considers that war damages owed to Syria should not be paid by the United States, but by transnational corporations.
Is this revolution in international relations desirable or even possible?
114 member states of the « Friends of Syria » financed its destruction by the jihadists. But after they had failed, none of them want to pay anything for its reconstruction. However, they had no problem supporting the states who offer refuge to the Syrian refugees – given that, obviously, this was not a humanitarian gesture, but a means of draining off Syria’s human resources.
Above all, they all hope to further enrich themselves by masking their crime and by obtaining reconstruction contracts.
On 7 and 8 August, meeting in Beirut, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), estimated the minimal cost of reconstruction at 388 billion dollars. It should deliver a detailed report on the subject in September.
Already, aware that what that country experienced had very little to do with a « civil war », but rather with a foreign aggression, it has announced the title of this report – Syria, 7 years at war. Meaning Syria, 7 years at war and not 7 years of war .
By comparison, Lebanon, whose population is three times smaller, was only able to obtain 11 billion dollars of international aid during the CEDRE conference last April.
The United States, which had been planning the war against Syria since 2004, does not want to part with a penny.
According to the Trump administration, this war was created by the Bush Jr. administration and led by the Obama administration. However, these two administrations were not serving the interests of the US people, but those of a transnational financial class.
Not only did they destroy Syria, but also the US economy. Thus it is not for Washington to pay, but these people and the transnational corporations directly implicated in the war.
For example, the United States investment fund and rival of the Carlyle Group, Henry Kravis’ KKR (market value 150 billion dollars).
It employs General David Petraeus and transferred funds and weapons to Al-Qaeda and Daesh . Or Japanese automobile manufacturer Toyota, which furnished all of Daesh’s new vehicles (market value 170 billion dollars) . Or again, Caterpillar, the manufacturer of construction machines, which sold to the jihadists the tunnel-building machinery necessary for the construction of their underground networks (market value 76 billion dollars).
Not to mention the Franco-Swiss cement producer Lafarge-Holcim, which produced 6 million tonnes of cement for the construction of their bunkers (market value 40 billion dollars) , etc.
The engagement of these corporations in the implementation of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski’s plan to destroy the states and societies of the Greater Middle East can probably be explained by their certainty that they would thus gain access to the region’s natural resources, under the protection of the Western armies.
Making the multinationals pay does not exclude obtaining damages from certain states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar or Turkey, which financed, or certain of whose citizens publicly financed the jihadists.
If the Syrian Arab Republic can gather the proof of their role during the war, it will be legally entitled to demand seizure before the tribunals of the country accommodating their headquarters. In the light of President Trump’s arguments, it should be possible for them to count on the support of the new US administration.
It is therefore possible, even without managing to make the states pay, to collect the 388 billion dollars mentioned by the ESCWA.
At the end of all wars which called for the payment of damages, national companies were seized. The novelty this time will be drawing the conclusions of economic globalisation and seizing the transnationals.