1. Trump Syrian Foreign Policy and its Consequences
The
off-the-cuff remarks that Trump usually makes are based partly on his own
instincts, partly on intelligence briefings, and partly on the advice and input
he receives from multiple sources, in and outside of government. For several
years, he has been on record in opposing “regime change” and embracing a rather
curious combination of stronger military build up and neo-isolationism that
goes hand-in-hand with his approach to international trade and opposition to
multilateral commercial relations. Isolationism of course, does not preclude US
unilateral action or invoking multilateralism when the US sees it to its
advantage. His own problems with the investigation by Robert Mueller, mounting
pressures from the strong bipartisan support for military interventionism both
at home and from NATO and some Middle East countries, especially Israel and
Saudi Arabia constantly forces Trump to consider military strikes as a way of
appeasing disparate ideological, political, and of course defense industry
groups. Trump is well aware of defense operation costs to the US budget, as he
has repeatedly stated. However, he is hardly an expert on the multi-dimensional
aspects and consequences of US military action, and the people with whom he
surrounds himself are not interested in long-term consequences, only short-term
political and strategic advantage. The larger question for the US political and
defense establishment with all the corporate-funded thinks tanks advising them
is what kind of relationship do they want with Russia and what limits are they
willing to place on US military solutions, just as they expect the same of
Russia. Unfortunately, these questions give way to immediate expediency for
Trump but also to those in his cabinet and those in the State Department and
Pentagon. At the same time, the inter-agency rivalry with the CIA carrying out
its own operations simply adds another complication into the mix, especially
given Trump’s distaste for the CIA as an agency.
2. Is the US Concerned about Syria's Use of Chemical Weapons?
People
who are honest, above all with themselves if not with the public, will readily
admit that empirical evidence must be furnished by an independent, UN-led
mission to ascertain who has been using chemical weapons. Without independent
confirmation to prove incontrovertibly that indeed Syria is responsible for
using such weapons, we are left with conspiracy theories, speculation,
propaganda and inability to work for a constructive foundation for US-Russia
relations and a constructive political resolution to the Syrian civil war. If
indeed the goal of the US is to bypass such a constructive relationship and continue
with destabilization policies, then the present course is politically
acceptable. However, it has multiple consequences for all parties concerned,
including the US that in the end will be left with a larger foreign debt and
smaller regional influence in the Middle East. For its part, Russia wants to
retain Syria as a satellite to counterbalance the US-Saudi-Israeli influence.
The problem for the US is that China leans more heavily toward the Russian
position than the US. Beijing does not want US-NATO monopoly in the Middle East
any more than Russia or Iran. If indeed the US does bomb Syrian targets, as it
may in order to save face if nothing else, the goal will be a symbolic gesture
to appease militarist adventurists in the US, placate multilateral militarists
in the Western Alliance and the Middle East, and for Trump to receive a
much-needed applause from both Republicans and Democrats alike and the
mainstream media merely for demonstrating resolve and leadership because
militarism is easily equated with leadership whereas diplomacy is seen as
compromise. People who analyze foreign policy in order to promote an ideology
or as an advertisement for the defense industry want military adventurism.
Those interested in crisis-resolution know that there is no military solution
for the Syrian crisis which is complex owing to considerable foreign
intervention as well as a reflection of disparate divisions within Syria that
range from religious and tribal to socioeconomic and political. There is an
opportunity for a solution, but the only consideration for the US political,
defense and business establishment is what influence will the US have once the
negotiations are finished.
3. Russia has stated that it would shoot down US missiles fired
over Syria, can this lead to a possible US-Russia confrontation?
Russia has spent several billions in the past seven years
trying to act as a counterweight to the US and to retain the old Soviet-style
influence with Syria, while also helping to defeat ISIS. It achieved the goal,
but only with the help of Iran and late-in-the-game Turkish participation after
Erdogan's disagreement with Saudi Arabia. The uncomfortable
Moscow-Tehran-Ankara alliance to keep Syria out of US-NATO-Saudi influence
could be at risk if an all-out military confrontation erupts between US and
Russia even at the regional and very limited level. I believe that the Kremlin
has to save face as much as Trump. However, Putin will think long and hard
about how to avoid confrontation and what limits he is willing to put on the
table as negotiating leverage, even if he has to return fire at a limited
scope. Russia actually has a burden in Syria for it is not an easy thing
carrying a satellite as the US knows – just ask the people who keep track of
the costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite those itching for war in the media,
Pentagon, intelligence agencies, business circles and think tanks, the US
public has no appetite for a war or destabilization that drive markets down.
The problem is finding a mutually-agreed route out the crisis, and this is an
enigma because there are many players and they disagree sharply. US-Russian
confrontation is more frightening to Americans than a confrontation with North
Korea.
4. US allies such as the UK, Australia and France have stated
that they will consider a missile strike on Syria, what can we expect from US
Western allies?
The
Syrian crisis is where the EU can play a moderating role and actually mitigate
it by demanding a political solution that does not also put at risk EU-Iranian
relations. Surprisingly Germany, instead of France or the UK that present
themselves as more progressive, could play that role partly because Germany has
more to lose but also because Berlin sees its EU economic hegemony threatened
by military adventures. The US could actually use the disagreements among NATO
members as cover for military restraint, even if that means dropping a few
bombs as show of strength and demonstration of superpower status. The nature of
the highly integrated world economy, with China pulling so many strings from
behind the scenes will help to avert a crisis. This does not mean that things
cannot get out of control as they did with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the
world is more integrated today in it was sixty years ago. The Western Alliance
is somewhat fractured not only because of Trump’s criticism of it and his
tendency to opt for unilateral diplomacy, but also because China wields so much
economic power as the world’s number one economic power in PPP terms, while the
US remains number one in nominal GDP. The gap between rising US military power
and declining economic power, the latter which is filled by China, forces
re-alignment in practice although in theory the Western Alliance remains solid.
Countries economically dependent on China while military dependent on the US
take into account their broader interests, considering that economic power is
in itself considerable leverage on diplomacy. Because of this variable, US
military power has limitations as it is not backed by economic power as it was
under Truman and Eisenhower.
5. Do you think it’s still likely that the US troops will
withdraw from Syria in the short-term?
The US will not be withdrawing from Syria, no matter what
Trump says. Of course, there could be some quid-pro-quo. Obama promised
withdrawing from Afghanistan as well, but the US is still there in a highly
dubious mission as a symbol of super-power status and little else. The CIA
proxy war with Saudi Arabia providing financing to Syrian rebels, and Iran as a
main target to be weakened as far as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia are
concerned, make it necessary for the US to remain in Syria in some fashion. If
one steps back from this heated crisis and examines it from a dispassionate
perspective, it may actually best serve the interests of the Syrian people to
have some US-NATO influence in Syria for the intermediate term, and Putin may
actually negotiate such a role. Not that Syria can become the modern model of
Tito's Yugoslavia, but given the circumstances, negotiating some role for the
West at least to buy time and give the people of Syria breathing room for
reconstruction and development is not a bad solution that may suit all sides.
Longer-term, who knows what happens in Syria? Just take a look at all the North
African countries that underwent uprisings and Western interventions ostensibly
to improve the lives of the people? Are the people of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia,
Morocco, or Algeria better off today than they were before the uprisings?
The tragedy is one suffered by the people of Syria who are victims, while
foreign powers position themselves to influence the regional balance of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment