While the United States and their allies have deliberately created famine conditions in North Korea, then in Sudan, in Tunisia, and now in Yemen, they are also beginning to drag Syria down into starvation. The only way of avoiding this situation is by relaunching the regional economy, which collapsed during the wars in Iraq and Syria. Two projects for railroads are currently in competition – the first intended to develop the region, the second to divide it. Are the Westerners behaving like human beings, or are they pursuing their dream of world domination?
For its reconstruction, Syria can only count on itself, because not one of the powers that spent hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy it is prepared to spend the first cent to help rebuild it.
In these conditions, the future of the country depends on reconnecting with its past – the time at which it was the only open passage between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. In antiquity, the « Silk Road » stretched from the ancient Chinese capital of Xi’an to Antioch and Tyr.
This route was not only a passage which enabled the exchange of merchandise from town to town, it was also a route for culture via which Chinese philosophy spread through Asia, and the Muslim religion arrived in China. It was a route whose common language was not Mandarin, but Persian. Thereafter, Syria continued to be the passage between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, which ensured its prosperity until the construction of the Suez Canal.
The project for a railroad linking the Iranian port of Khorramshahr, at the frontier with Iraq, to the Syrian port of Basra, via Baghdad, is not a new idea. It had already been planned before the war, at the time of the Turko-Irano-Syrian common market. Its tracks were systematically sabotaged by pro-Western mercenaries, causing the derailing of trains and the deaths of personnel and travellers.
So, from the start, the organisers of the war – primarily the United Kingdom – intended to prevent Syria’s economic activity. This is a characteristic behaviour of British colonialism – making sure that the colonised people remain dependent.
For example, when India was the main producer of cotton, London made sure that it could produce,