Category Archives: Middle East

Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

The agreement between the United States and Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons…

SYRIA: US/RUSSIAN AGREEMENT

The agreement between the United States and Russia on chemical weapons in Syria is an important piece of political diplomacy. The idea that Bashar al-Assad could avoid military action by giving up his chemical stockpiles was much more than an ‘off-the cuff’ remark by John Kerry, US Secretary of State, who expressed that view in London last Monday.

The notion that has been circulating that Vladimir Putin has outsmarted the United States, his country’s historical adversary, by somehow exploiting Mr Kerry’s blunder must surely be a mistake. The U.S. has wanted this deal, proved by its tireless efforts to get it, and the world should welcome it too.

The agreement is a step in the right direction. The deal provides for the destruction of Assad’s chemical arsenal under United Nations supervision by the middle of next year. The prospects of the deal being met must be weighed against the risk of Syria’s chemical weapons being seized upon by Iran, or even Russia itself, as potential complicity creeps in.

While Mr Kerry has talked up the prospect of the UN authorising military action if Assad failed to comply, those words are not in the text of the agreement, and Russia would have to agree that the terms of the deal had been breached.

The mere fact that an agreement has been reached, however, has two consequences. First, it does make it less probable that Assad or his commanders will use chemical weapons again, because to do so would politically embarrass Mr Putin. This has pertinence because the need to deter the Assad regime from using gas again was the strongest argument in favour of the limited punitive action proposed by President Obama. Second, it means that Russia is now engaged in a process that could lead to an eventual end to the bloodshed.

The parochial argument that the delay in air strikes sought by British MPs in the House of Commons by providing the time for a deal to be made does have substance. Globally, the return of Russia to the international stage is one of the more important changes in geopolitics in recent years. That may be a response to the winding down of American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Russia stepping forward was far from inevitable. Yet, again, if the U.S. had not taken the initiative in the region, no one else would have done so, particularly with Britain baulking at the prospect of becoming embroiled in another war. That Russia is now engaged in the search for an end to the brutality and carnage in Syria is a hopeful change.

For there to be a settlement in Syria, Iran will also need to be consulted as it too is also a patron of the Assad regime. We should not naively assume that the recent election of the ‘reform-minded’ Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president – with recent expressions of goodwill to Israel – mean that Iran is now a force for peace in the region.

But the agreement could bring the Iranian leadership to accept that its interests are best served by following the Russian lead and sharing some of the responsibility for ending a conflict in Syria that has claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people.

The deal between the United States and Russia deserves a cautious approval, even though the prospects for a settlement in Syria still remain particularly distant.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

The U.S. holds fire by giving a Russian-backed proposal a chance over Syria…

SYRIA

The diplomatic momentum over Syria in the last 24 hours has surpassed all expectations and has been quite breath-taking. Events may have unfolded through an inopportune comment made by the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, during his visit to London at the beginning of this week.

A week in politics is a long time, or so it’s said. No more is this evident than in America where, one minute, President Obama was preparing to tour the US talk shows to appeal for Congressional and public support for air strikes; the next, he was actually on those talk shows, airing qualified support for a Russian proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons stocks under international control and supervision. The Congressional vote, which was widely seen as a make-or-break for Mr Obama, has been shelved, and France has been working hard in delivering a draft UN Security Council resolution that aims to put the Russian proposal into effect.

Startling, because, in just 24 hours, we have gone from the tense threshold of unilateral U.S. military action and a Cold War-style US-Russia rift to a proposal on which almost everyone can agree – the exception being possibly Syria’s anti-Assad opposition.

The French draft resolution is said to provide not only for the weapons stocks to be controlled, but destroyed, and for any breach to be met with ‘extremely serious consequences’.

If those consequences are assumed to include military action, if non-compliance was forthcoming, there is a risk that the resolution will attract a new Russian veto. The West should be wary of Moscow’s proposal that may have been conjured up to head-off U.S. air strikes, by merely serving as a delaying tactic. An apt tactic some may say, presaging months of Iraq-style disputes about access and monitoring.

But from another perspective it hardly matters why the international appetite for a military response is so small – however limited in intent and however heinous the crime that inspired it.  That could be put down to the ‘war weariness’ of campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, much of which still colours the political debate. But it may also be due to the difficult geopolitics surrounding Syria, a conflict recognised as being far too complex for punitive resolution.

If democratically leaders cannot convince their electorate on something as grave as peace and war, it will be time for them to pause and consider whether another answer might be found.

Any solution that deters outside military intervention, while removing the insidious threat of chemical weapons, would surely benefit everyone, no more so than the escalating numbers of Syrian civilians who find themselves in the middle of a war zone.

Any UN-sponsored agreement along the lines of a credible Russian proposal could help to open the way for wider talks. While this may be premature by jumping ahead to soon, the priority must be to ensure that the diplomatic process is not written off at a whim before it has been given a real chance to start.

The off-the-cuff remark by John Kerry in London does appear to have opened the door to a diplomatic resolution of the stand-off over Syria’s deployment of chemical weapons. In what was deemed a half-hearted suggestion by Mr Kerry that Bashar al-Assad’s arsenal be placed under international control and destroyed, the response was so swift that it is inconceivable not to see some choreography at work (or else just sheer relief).

Vladimir Putin picked up on the idea, and immediately pressed the Assad regime to agree. Washington said that if Syria did comply it would put on hold plans for a military strike in retaliation to the atrocity in Damascus last month. The United States, Britain and France have now tabled a resolution in the UN Security Council.

Nonetheless, sceptics are entitled to be suspicious. Why, for example, has Mr Putin, for so long the barrier to any action against Assad, turned peacemaker? Is this a delaying tactic to protect his Syrian ally, or one that is aimed in further undermining the already weak public support in the West for military strikes?

And, how will it be possible to logistically verify the destruction of the chemical weapons while civil war rages on in Syria? Will Assad call a ceasefire to allow inspectors to do their work, and if so will the rebels agree to one? The highly complex process of confirming whether Syria has complied would be fraught with difficulty, and could take several years to complete.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United Nations, United States

Comparing Syria today with Iraq in 2003…

ANALYSIS

Many commentators use Iraq as a benchmark when judging American foreign policy in the Middle East. Whilst no one will want ‘another Iraq’, and placing rhetoric aside, how does Syria today actually compare to Iraq in 2003?

Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s President, and Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi despot, were both Ba’athist dictators presiding over countries that are an unstable balance of varying sectarian, political and ethnic groups. Long before any suggestion of U.S. military involvement, both regimes committed grave atrocities against their civilian populations. In 1988 Saddam Hussein dropped chemical bombs on citizens in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing around 5,000 and injuring thousands more. Prior to that, and in 1982, Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s former leader, crushed an uprising in the Syrian city of Hama, killing more than 20,000 people.

Iraq was plagued with sectarian violence (which continues today) following the political vacuum created by the US-led invasion. The bloody civil war in Syria is already dividing along sectarian lines at a time when these divides are deepening across the entire Middle East region.

Making the case for war is the second comparative. The US-led invasion of Iraq primarily centred on Hussein’s failure to co-operate with U.N. weapons inspections and the since-discredited evidence and intelligence on the country’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. When it comes to Syria, President Obama has signalled that Assad’s use of chemical weapons on unarmed civilians is a ‘red line’ and that the U.S. will want to disrupt and degrade the regime’s military capabilities against civilians.

The United Nations have said that around 100,000 have been killed in Syria so far. If the U.S. doesn’t intervene, we know that many more will perish before a political solution is found. We won’t know, however, how many will be killed if the U.S. carries out military strikes, irrespective of how accurate the missiles are deemed to be. As many as 125,380 civilians were killed following the U.S. invasion of Iraq; it’s difficult to argue that this many would have died if Iraq had not been invaded in 2003.

The cost of intervention must also be considered. An estimate of the overall cost of the Iraq war is said to run as high as $2 trillion. Whilst Washington has said that military action in Syria will be far more limited, and there will be ‘no boots on the ground’, the Cato institute suggests that the cost of a Syrian intervention would need to include $500 million for training rebels, a further $500 million for establishing an initial Syrian no-fly zone, and then as much as a billion dollars a month in military operational costs. Expect costs to inflate beyond official figures, as they invariably do.

The issue of outside involvement is also important to note. Unlike Iraq pre-2003, there is already a high level of external involvement on the ground in Syria. The Gulf States, along with Turkey, as well as the U.S. and Europe, are offering varying degrees of financial and military support to a broad range of anti-Assad factions. Assad himself can still count on backing from Iran and Russia. The Arab Spring has meant that politics across the region is now far more volatile and unpredictable than it was ten years ago; there can be no doubt that Syria’s interventions will have far-reaching ramifications across the Middle East and post-Arab Spring.

Appetite for war is the final consideration. America’s experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have dampened public appetite for war. A ‘war weary’ nation will have reduced expectations that any U.S. military involvement in another Middle Eastern country will be neat or quick. If Mr Obama does win support in Congress, the U.S. will have a clear mandate to go to war in Syria with France as its chief European partner. The U.S. can also expect support from the Arab League, too. In an unusual intervention it has urged the international community to ‘take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for’. Just as in Iraq, the U.S. cannot hope for UN backing for its actions because of veto wielding Russia and China. Arguably, though, this was seen as more important in 2003 because today we have lower expectations of the UN’s divided and indifferent Security Council.

Standard