ISIS is certainly not afraid to make enemies. Their latest round of terrorist strikes may have succeeded in uniting international action to finally begin bringing an end to their barbaric outrages. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, November 13 that have claimed 129 lives thus far came close on the heels of the October 31 murder of 224 in the downing of a Russian airliner over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, apparently by an explosive stowed in baggage, and the killing of 43 by twin suicide bombers on November 12 in Beirut, Lebanon.
French President Francois Hollande and Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed retribution and have sent warplanes to deliver heavy attacks against ISIS targets in Syria. American planes are already conducting their own campaign in Syria and Iraq at the head of a coalition that includes 16 nations. Their strikes paved the way for Kurdish Peshmerga forces to seize the important crossroads town of Sinjar from ISIS militants.
France has invoked article 42.7 of the European Union Lisbon Charter, which calls for aid to any member state under attack. All 27 nations of the EU President have responded positively. Hollande is about to go to Washington to confer with President Obama and then will cross the Atlantic again to meet with President Putin in Moscow. Putin was shown on Russian TV today ordering his military forces to treat France, which is sending an aircraft carrier to the Easter Mediterranean, "as an ally."
The Foreign Ministers meeting on Syria, held in Vienna on October 30 has now led to a semi-permanent group, styling itself the International Syria Support Group. Participants include the Arab League,
China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan,
Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, the UK, the
United Nations, and the U.S. The group has declared that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Da'esh, in its Arabic initials) as well as the Jabhat al-Nusra Front,
and ″other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council,
and further, as agreed by the participants and endorsed by the UN
Security Council, must be defeated.″
The tricky part is that the U.S. and its Western allies want Bashar Assad out as Syrian leader while Russia and Iran are trying to prop him up. This has so far prevented joint action among the international community on the Syrian problem. Meanwhile the war has dragged on, creating the refugee crisis and giving ISIS the chaos it has used to establish its territorial sway over much of Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. It may well have angered enough powers now that they will put aside their differences, at least long enough to focus all their firepower on crushing ISIS first. Talks are underway to arrange a cease-fire of the various factions in Syria by January 1 that would permit effective coordination against ISIS. Don't be surprised if these talks bear fruit. ISIS's latest terror ventures have been way too successful for their own good.
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Where I Stand on Poison Gas
There is understandably and rightly much talk about Syria right now, and I believe a lot of it misses the point. The point is poison gas. Some talk of doing more to encourage negotiations. Sure, that would be nice. No doubt that is being pursued behind the scenes by many with good intentions, from Ban Ki Moon to Switzerland to the U.S. State Department. For me, I do not expect there to be any negotiations any time soon with
Russia and Iran backing one side and the Saudis, Gulf States, Turkey and
France backing the other, not until one side feels it has lost on the
battlefield and is ready to capitulate. And none of that matters anyway, when it comes to poison gas.
A grand strategy would be good. Do we back all the rebels, just the nice rebels, or stay out? We seem to be rather unsure. Most of us don't want to get mired down in the Syrian Civil War. And I agree we shouldn't. But that is a separate issue from the use of poison gas, which has been illegal by international agreement since shortly after World War I.
As for me, I want to live in a world in which nobody ever uses poison gas and the ban on it is strictly enforced. Whoever uses poison gas needs to gets smacked, and hard. The calculation of any actor in the future has to include the certainty that if it uses poison gas it will lose its air force and a good many of its other assets capable of delivering more gas. Ruthless people will do anything they need to do to hold onto power until the cost outweighs the benefits. Arguments of any rationale that end with the conclusion that we need to let anybody get away with using poison gas are terribly naive, as far as I'm concerned. We stop this now or we will see more and more of it in the future. That's where I stand.
A grand strategy would be good. Do we back all the rebels, just the nice rebels, or stay out? We seem to be rather unsure. Most of us don't want to get mired down in the Syrian Civil War. And I agree we shouldn't. But that is a separate issue from the use of poison gas, which has been illegal by international agreement since shortly after World War I.
As for me, I want to live in a world in which nobody ever uses poison gas and the ban on it is strictly enforced. Whoever uses poison gas needs to gets smacked, and hard. The calculation of any actor in the future has to include the certainty that if it uses poison gas it will lose its air force and a good many of its other assets capable of delivering more gas. Ruthless people will do anything they need to do to hold onto power until the cost outweighs the benefits. Arguments of any rationale that end with the conclusion that we need to let anybody get away with using poison gas are terribly naive, as far as I'm concerned. We stop this now or we will see more and more of it in the future. That's where I stand.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
U.S. Moves Toward Intervention in Syria
President Obama met with his national security team yesterday to decide what to do about Syria amid mounting evidence the Bashar Assad regime has used chemical weapons recently in its civil war, purportedly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. Reports today indicate U.S. Naval forces are being moved closer to the Eastern Mediterranean nation.
The president said a year ago that the use of lethal chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a "red line" necessitating an international response. It appears the Administration is currently analyzing evidence to make certain that a chemical attack did in fact occur. The president spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone yesterday. The prime minister's office released a statement saying the use of outlawed chemical weapons would constitute a grave threat to international law and require a firm response. It also said that regime interference in United Nations inspection efforts indicates the Assad government "has something to hide."
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters it is pretty certain that such weapons were used. He said the Defense Department has presented the president with a range of options. He declined, however, to specify those options or to confirm reports that Navy warships were now massing within range of Syria.
President Obama has heretofore been reluctant to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war which has now raged for over two years, created up to two million refugees and cost, according to estimates, over 100,000 lives. A rising against the authoritarian Assad regime began in conjunction with the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011. The fighting has seesawed back and forth, with Arab states sending support to rebel groups and Iran and Russia backing Assad. The tangled forces involved in the fighting include Iranian-backed Hezbollah Shi'ite extremists on Assad's side and some al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the opposition. Obama has been concerned to keep aid to the rebels out of the hands of the al-Qaeda jihadist Sunni forces allied with the more democratic groups all fighting to oust Assad.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it - do we have the coalition to make it work?" Obama said in a television interview broadcast Friday. "Those are considerations that we have to take into account." It seems the verification and the international backing are now being sought.
If action is taken, expect it to take the form of cruise missiles launched from Navy warships, the same type of action taken against the Libyan regime in its civil war. Targets would probably include Assad's air forces and artillery units, the regime forces most capable of delivering chemical agents against the Syrian populace and rebel fighters.
The president said a year ago that the use of lethal chemical weapons in Syria would constitute a "red line" necessitating an international response. It appears the Administration is currently analyzing evidence to make certain that a chemical attack did in fact occur. The president spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron by telephone yesterday. The prime minister's office released a statement saying the use of outlawed chemical weapons would constitute a grave threat to international law and require a firm response. It also said that regime interference in United Nations inspection efforts indicates the Assad government "has something to hide."
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters it is pretty certain that such weapons were used. He said the Defense Department has presented the president with a range of options. He declined, however, to specify those options or to confirm reports that Navy warships were now massing within range of Syria.
President Obama has heretofore been reluctant to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war which has now raged for over two years, created up to two million refugees and cost, according to estimates, over 100,000 lives. A rising against the authoritarian Assad regime began in conjunction with the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011. The fighting has seesawed back and forth, with Arab states sending support to rebel groups and Iran and Russia backing Assad. The tangled forces involved in the fighting include Iranian-backed Hezbollah Shi'ite extremists on Assad's side and some al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the opposition. Obama has been concerned to keep aid to the rebels out of the hands of the al-Qaeda jihadist Sunni forces allied with the more democratic groups all fighting to oust Assad.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it - do we have the coalition to make it work?" Obama said in a television interview broadcast Friday. "Those are considerations that we have to take into account." It seems the verification and the international backing are now being sought.
If action is taken, expect it to take the form of cruise missiles launched from Navy warships, the same type of action taken against the Libyan regime in its civil war. Targets would probably include Assad's air forces and artillery units, the regime forces most capable of delivering chemical agents against the Syrian populace and rebel fighters.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Demystifying Syria
Demonstrations for freedom and democracy began in Syria as an outgrowth of last year's "Arab Spring" movement. Syrian demonstrators began taking to the streets in late January 2011 and gathered strength in March, following the successful liberalization movements in Tunisia and Egypt and while the Libyan effort was still underway. While most Americans are aware of the turmoil in Syria, especially now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking out strongly in favor of the rebels, the overall situation seems rather confusing. There are indeed several levels of complexity, both from the mix of different groups inside Syria and from the intricacies of international politics. I'll try to shed some light on things.
You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria. It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon. It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey. Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime. Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup. The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system. Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar.
There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government. But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria. What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military. Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown. The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for weeks. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.
In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too. Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam. Another 10% are Christians. The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere. Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam. Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts. A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.
The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well. Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention. Many wonder why. It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region. As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill. Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe. But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them. Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.
Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage. Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil. But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further. It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan. If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid. That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.
You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria. It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon. It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey. Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime. Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup. The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system. Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar.
There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government. But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria. What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military. Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown. The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for weeks. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.
In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too. Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam. Another 10% are Christians. The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere. Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam. Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts. A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.
The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well. Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention. Many wonder why. It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region. As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill. Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe. But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them. Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.
Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage. Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil. But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further. It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan. If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid. That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Diplomatic Movement in Syria?
If you are interested in foreign affairs and world events there are few better places to spend an hour than "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN Sunday mornings. "GPS" in this case stands for Global Public Square. This week was no exception, and featured a remarkable interview with the Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha. You can read the entire transcript here. The bottom line from Syria's ambassador is that he says his country is ready to agree to a permanent peace with Israel.
Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"
The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."
He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."
Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.
Such a peace could be along the lines of what currently exists between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. Israel would return the Golan, the two countries would exchange recognition and ambassadors, normalize relations and so on. But Moustapha hopes the agreement would go even further, to include a comprehensive and final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Significantly, however, that was not held up as a precondition. "But you have alluded to the Israeli peace agreement with Jordan and Egypt. If this is what Israel wants, this can be done." But he went on to propose, "The issue is, shouldn't we at one point arrive to a point in which peace prevails in the Middle East, suffering ends, human dignity is restored to the Palestinian nation?"
The ambassador feels the election of Barack Obama has opened new possibilities. "We thought that America has vindicated herself by electing Obama after eight terrible years with the Bush administration. The ordinary, simple man from Syria was overjoyed." But for his country in particular, Moustapha explained, "However, because of Syria, the major emphasis was on the sentence in which he said that he wants to support the peace process between Syria and Israel. This made news headlines in Syria as compared to the Bush administration that used to oppose peace talks between Syria and Israel. For us in Syria, I think this was a very important message."
He contended the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to sponsor peace talks. He shows an appreciation for Israeli concerns and the special relationship it enjoys with America by saying, "The moment the United States will come in vigorously and tell the Israelis, while we are absolutely committed to your security, we believe that what you are doing is detriment even to your own security on the long term (sic)." Moustapha also praised the naming of former Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region, calling him, "A person known for his honesty, integrity, fairness and his capability to deliver."
Though hopes have been dashed many times in the volatile region, this is quite an important set of pronouncements from Syria's official representative to the United States. It affords an opportunity to defuse a dispute between Israel and the third of its four neighbors. Perhaps as importantly, it appears to evidence Syrian willingness to warm up to the United States and reconsider what Zakaria calls its recent "unnatural alliance with normally anti-Arab (and, of course, highly anti-American) Iran." By declaring certain countries pariah states and refusing to engage with them, American diplomacy over the past few years has done much to push them into common cause with each other. So both for reasons of peace and national interest, this is an opening the Obama administration would do well to fully explore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)