Posted on May 18, 2020by Ali Tuygan
May 18, 2020
Syria’s relations with Moscow have
traditionally been close and steady. Russia operated a military base in Tartus
for more than four decades. In the mid-1990s, following the collapse of the
Soviet Union, U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher , believing that this
offered an opportunity to move Syria away from Russia, went to Damascus 24
times always to leave empty-handed.
The West and its regional allies saw the
Arab spring as another opportunity. In fact, they had little in common beyond
their desire to remove President Assad from power. For some the Muslim
Brotherhood deserved being named a terrorist organization, for others they were
heroes. However, after the UN Security Council “approved” botched intervention
in Libya, there was no way Russia and China could allow the West another shot,
this time in Syria. And there was no way Russia could give up its one and only
foothold in the Middle East.
Today, the Syrian conflict is in its
ninth year. Gone are the days of the “Friends of Syria Group” meetings and
chest-thumping by the “architects” of the regime change project. Russia’s
military intervention in Syria was a game changer. It showed that Russia
remains a major actor in the Middle East and has the hard power to make a
difference on the ground. Nonetheless, a political solution on Russian terms
remains elusive. In the meantime, Syria has become a devastated country.
Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died. Millions have been displaced.
Millions have become refugees in neighboring countries.
Yes, we have all the U.N. Security
Council resolutions reaffirming support for Syria’s independence and
territorial integrity; less nowadays but we still hear about Syria’s political
transition; the U.N. has called for a global cease-fire; and, Germany and
Estonia are reportedly going to table a draft resolution to the Security
Council to that effect, but all of that seems to be of no consequence, because
the interests of major powers are in conflict.
Last Tuesday, Newsweek reported that
U.S. special representative for Syria, Ambassador Jeffrey has urged continued
American deployment to the war-torn country to keep pressure on U.S. enemies
and make the conflict a “quagmire” for Russia. Reportedly, he said that
President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” approach towards Syria was paying
dividends and rejected concerns that the American deployment there could turn
into a drawn out and costly project akin to Afghanistan or Vietnam. “This isn’t Afghanistan, this isn’t Vietnam,” he
explained. “This isn’t a quagmire. My job is to make it a
quagmire for the Russians”
Mr. Jeffrey said it was imperative to
“keep the pressure on” the Assad regime, explaining, “I’ve never seen a regime that poses more threats to its region
and to the American idea of how the world should be organized.”
While confirming the S-400 missile
conflict with Turkey, he also said Washington’s end goal for Syria is very
similar to that of Ankara.[i]
Ambassador Jeffrey’s candor about
turning Syria into a quagmire for Russia is only to be respected. And his
effort, as a former ambassador to Ankara, to inspire optimism for
Turkish-American relations is to be appreciated. However, in terms of
Washington’s foreign policy in general, Middle East and Syria in particular,
his comments are worrisome.
Yes, Vietnam was a quagmire for the
U.S.; Afghanistan was a quagmire for the Soviet Union; it has proved a quagmire
also for Washington. Iraq could have turned into another quagmire had President
Obama not agreed to withdrawing U.S. troops as demanded by Baghdad. In brief,
Washington has enough experience about quagmires.
But the intention to create a Syrian
quagmire for Russia raises fundamental questions about U.S. foreign policy in
general and the Middle East and Syria in particular.
§
Is Washington still committed to U.N.
Security Council resolutions it has voted for?
§
Syrian negotiating tactics can extremely
be frustrating, but what are the threats posed by Damascus to the region?
§
What about the impact of an extended
Syrian quagmire on Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey?
§
Who are Washington’s allies in turning
Syria into a quagmire for Russia?
§
What about the fight against the ISIS?
§
What is the time frame envisaged for
turning Syria into a quagmire for Russia?
§
Is Syria destined to remain a war zone
for decades?
§
Wouldn’t this mean continued devastation
and loss of life?
As for Turkey, one may add that the
ruling Justice and Development Party’s end game in Syria has always been the
empowerment of Muslim Brotherhood. By contrast, President Trump was weighing to
designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization only a year
ago. Eventually he decided not to do it, but intention was there. U.S. support
for the S.D.F. also remains a source of discord. And, Turkey and Israel agree
on nothing beyond President Assad’s ouster.
Resolving the Syrian conflict requires
cooperation between Russia and the U.S. Washington’s contribution to achieving
a solution sooner than later will only earn it region’s respect after failed
military interventions. American diplomacy owes this much to the Middle East.
REPORT
THIS AD
Russia is a major power. It has a strong
diplomatic tradition. It will not give up its special relationship with Syria.
Perhaps, all of them under threat by
King Covid XIX, regional countries involved in the Syrian conflict should take
another look at their failed policies. Because being sucked into a quagmire
accidentally, unwillingly is one thing, jumping into one knowingly is quite
another thing, as we know well in Turkey.
—————————————————————————————
[i] https://www.newsweek.com/us-syria-representative-james-jeffrey-job-make-war-quagmire-russia-1503702
No comments:
Post a Comment