Syrian tragedy rolls on

S P SETH

The image of a five-year old child sitting on a giant-sized chair after being pulled out from a bombed site in the Syrian city of Aleppo is a defining moment of the madness that has gripped Syria during the last five years of rebellion/civil war in that country. With his dazed face and stunned emotions, he seems to be the living embodiment of a world that has lost its soul. In some ways, it is like the 9-year old girl in the Vietnam War, came to be known the ‘Napalm Girl’, trying to escape American bombing, which so vividly captured the senselessness and cruelty of carpet-bombing of Vietnam by the US war machine. This 5-year old kid, like so many others, is the collateral damage, to use an American terminology, of the on-going rebellion/civil war, in Syria.

As in any war or insurgency, there are competing narratives the opposing sides are trying to sell to their own people and the world at large. And this is true of Syria too. For the Bashar al-Assad regime, its opponents of different hues are all undifferentiated terrorists. Indeed, it casts itself in a superior/moral struggle against terrorism, deserving of global support. Therefore, in their propaganda war, which they are waging alongside the real war that is killing people all around, they appear bewildered that the US and its allies are not making a common cause with the Syrian regime. The Russians are obviously buying this narrative and promoting it, and are heavily involved militarily on the regime’s side ever since the Bashar regime appeared like it might lose to the rebels.

The US and its Arab allies want Assad regime out and accordingly have been helping its enemies with their respective versions of an Islamist replacement. However, the US was never sure of who was who among the rebels that might be worthy of their consistent support to get rid of the Assad family rule. Therefore, their weapons supplies and financial aid to the rebels was cautious subject to wetting of their credentials, which never really worked. But the ‘trusted’ rebels still got enough weapons and related assistance from the US, but some, if not much of it, fell to the jihadi/terrorist version of them. Indeed, according to reports, IS got a good chunk of it through their allied sources.  In other words, US’ Syria policy has lacked conviction because there is no clear alternative to the Assad regime. The removal of Assad regime, though, remains a goal.

Libya is an instructive example where the US and its western allies went all out to get rid of Gaddafi and the country is now a mess as a hotbed of feuding fiefdoms, with IS now having an important foothold. Syria, without a properly and assuredly worked out alternative to Assad regime, is likely to be worse. The US is now much more involved against IS in Syria, which is now its main objective. But the main objective of some of its Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, remains the removal of the Assad dynasty. Turkey, another US ally, is now engaged militarily against both IS and Syrian Kurds, who also happen to be US’ ally on the ground against IS. In other words, there is lack of political and strategic convergence among those whose broad goal is the removal of the Assad regime. The US is now much more committed to destroying IS.

This is where, superficially at least, there is broad agreement between the US and Russia. Moscow’s interpretation of it, though, includes all ‘terrorist’ networks that would include, more or less, all Assad regime enemies. In this sense, Russian bombardment of rebel-held areas in Aleppo and elsewhere, as part of its strategy to destroy terrorism, is intended to save the regime that had seemed, only a year ago, likely to lose to an array of rebel forces.  More recently when the rebels were making gains to wrest an important supply route, Russians intensified their bombing, using Iranian air bases. Which was a new development because so far, Russian and Iranian intervention on behalf of Damascus, had not involved the use of Iranian territory for Russian sorties. Iran has now backed away from allowing the use of their bases for Russian operations, as they reportedly felt betrayed that Moscow advertised this too loudly for their comfort.

Another new development is the emergence of China to support Assad regime. Politically, in the UN Security Council, China and Russia have been effectively vetoing US-led efforts to create a global action plan against the Damascus regime.  But it now seems to be developing into limited cooperation at the military level between Beijing and Damascus. The Chinese news agency, Xinhua, recently reported a meeting between Rear-Admiral Guan Youfei, who heads China’s office for international military cooperation, and Lieutenant-General Fahad Jassem al-Frejj, the Syrian defence minister, in Damascus. It said, “They reached consensus on improved personnel training, and the Chinese military offering humanitarian aid to Syria.” The Global Times newspaper of the ruling Communist Party has reported that Chinese advisers are already on the ground in Syria to train regime forces in the use of Chinese-bought weapons, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns.

China’s involvement is unlikely to be on the Russian scale, but reportage in the Chinese media attests to the increasing complexity of the Syrian situation with a wide array of regional and global interests involved. And a reported meeting between the Chinese Admiral Guan and Russian Lieutenant-General Sergei Chvarkov in the context of developments in Syria might also indicate a level of consultation between China and Russia. Russia has been getting deeper into it with its naval ships in the Mediterranean lobbing missiles into the rebel held areas of Aleppo.

In the midst of it all, it is the Syrian people that are suffering the most, even though all the parties involved in the conflict claim that they are actually in it for the people, whoever they might be. But it is not difficult to see that the so-called people are a pawn in a game involving sectarian, political and strategic interests of the concerned parties. And because these interests tend to clash, with no foreseeable prospect of reconciliation, the Syrian tragedy keeps rolling on.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Turkey-Russia turnabout

S P SETH

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent visit to Russia is an important development. First of all, it breaks the logjam in their relationship, which nosedived after a Russian plane was shot down last November for breaching Turkish air space for bombing raids on Syrian rebels. Moscow denied any violation of Turkish air space and demanded an apology. As the apology was not forthcoming, the relations between the two countries were virtually suspended thus adversely affecting Turkish economy. Russia stopped imports of fruit and other agricultural products, and tourism from Russia was halted. Similarly grandiose projects like a gas pipeline and a nuclear power plant to be built in Turkey were suspended. Erdogan’s visit will now lead to a resumption of their suspended relationship, with prospects of closer ties between the two countries.

It would seem that Erdogan was already having second thoughts and was keen to repair the damage from the shooting of the Russian warplane. He had already expressed regret for the incident, as earlier demanded by Putin. In the wake of the failed military coup in Turkey, President Putin’s rapid phone call expressing solidarity with President Erdogan was regarded as a “psychological boost” by the Turkish President, when it was needed most. Which in a way puts in context Erdogan’s initiative to revive his country’s strained relationship with Russia. While Russian President was immediately forthcoming and supportive of Erdogan’s situation and apparently his crackdown on his internal enemies, the US and Europe have lately become critical of the sweeping nature of Erdogan’s suppression of all freedoms, using the coup as a blunt instrument to go after all his real and imagined enemies. And he feels let down because, in his view, his crackdown is indeed meant to protect democracy.

He believes that the US and Europe are hypocritical in not appreciating and recognizing that his enemies are indeed “terrorists” and that his campaign against them is on par with the west’s war on terrorism. And, in the case of the US, Erdogan feels even more aggrieved and betrayed that they are sheltering the cleric, Fathullah Gulen, who is said to be the mastermind behind the failed coup.  His Hizmet movement is said to be working for the overthrow of Erdogan’s democratically elected government. And by refusing to extradite Gulen for his “terrorist” crimes, the US is complicit in the failed coup and all that Gulen and his supporters are hatching against the Erdogan government and Turkey’s democracy.

Erdogan believes that he is not without leverage in seeking to forestall western criticism of his policies for failure to follow due legal processes.  Both Putin and Erdogan find western criticism and values self-serving and hypocritical. They find themselves under western pressure to tailor their internal politics and system to dovetail with western concept and practice of democracy as a universal system. Even though Turkey is a NATO ally, Ankara feels let down when subjected to criticism for its tough internal crackdown after its democratically elected government came close to be overthrown. And indeed, as the Erdogan government sees it, all this time the architect of all the conspiracies, Fathullah Gulen, is safely ensconced in the United States and acting with impunity.

The Turkish government is seeking Gulen’s extradition, but the US is refusing to hand him over even after President Erdogan made a direct request to President Obama. Therefore, as Ankara sees it, this is not how friends and allies are supposed to act. In the same way, but in a different context, Putin sees Russia subjected to comprehensive sanctions for safeguarding its sovereign interests from an advancing NATO alliance by seeking to coopt Ukraine into EU and, likely, into NATO. On the face of it, there is no agreement between them on specific issues that rile Turkey and Russia against the west. But there appears to be a shared sense of outrage over western hypocrisy and double standards. Russia is treated as a pariah and Turkey fears that it might be heading in that direction for refusing to ‘behave’ according to western norms.

Turkey would very much like its western allies, particularly the United States, to become part of its crusade against the Kurds which it regards as a bigger enemy than IS. But they happen to be the US’ principal ally on the ground against IS.  It is only recently that Turkey has hardened its policy against IS. Otherwise, it has been allowing jihadis and weapons to pass through its borders into Syria. Erdogan has sought all this time to bring down the Bashar al-Assad regime, and was unhappy when the United States didn’t take the opportunity to bomb Assad regime out of existence when it crossed Obama’s ‘red line’ with the use of chemical weapons on its citizens. And when Russians intervened to save Assad with their bombing sorties, it was then than Erdogan ordered the shooting of the Russian plane putting Russian-Turkish relations in serious jeopardy.

 Even though the process of repair and revival has seemingly begun, there is no indication that Turkey and Russia might sort out their serious differences on Syria policy. In other words, the apparent improvement in Moscow-Ankara relations appears tentative rather than substantive. While the imagery created by Erdogan’s Moscow visit is useful internally in both countries as having alternative options, their real value, as of now, lacks depth. The resumption of economic relations will marginally help Turkey but it cannot afford to risk its overall relationship with the US and Europe.

Erdogan seems to believe he has more cards to play, as he did with slowing down the exodus of refugees from Syria and elsewhere into Europe. However, Ankara is unhappy at the ‘ingratitude’ of the EU, even though they have reportedly paid Turkey over $4billion for its services. The promised visa-free travel for Turks doesn’t appear to have materialized. And considering that Europe is critical of Erdogan’s no-holds-barred repression of his ‘enemies’ in the country, it doesn’t look Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership is likely to make any advance. On the face of it, Turkey is not making much headway in enlisting the US and European support on a whole range of issues that it considers important.

Which has led President Erdogan to believe that he might be able use his Russian card to create the necessary space to deal with the US and Europe. But there is one problem. While Putin has been able to create a larger than life image for Russia by intervening in Ukraine and in Syria, Russia is no Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Although it is the second largest nuclear power in the world, its economy is in rather bad shape from falling oil prices compounded by comprehensive western sanctions. In that sense, it is a poor counterweight to the west, if that is what Erdogan is aiming. Even as Ankara is trying to play the Russian card as evidenced by Erdogan’s recent visit, there are reports that Ankara was insisting that it didn’t signal a fundamental shift in Turkey’s foreign policy.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Iraq war revisited

S P SETH

By now it is generally accepted that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on a big lie. Now an exhaustive report of Britain’s role in the whole affair, when Tony Blair was the country’s prime minister, more or less, nails it down.  The seven-year investigation, led by Sir John Chilcot, has produced a voluminous report of 2.6 million words that is damning about all aspects from Tony Blair’s obeisance to then US president George Bush to the point of accepting whatever role the United Kingdom was assigned. In other words, London abandoned any serious effort to question and debate basic assumptions underlying the operations. The truth of the matter is that George Bush and his administration were set on attacking Iraq. And with this already settled, they went on looking for ‘evidence’ that would support their plans. And they were prepared to go it alone and would have ignored Blair, as they did the French and Germans (and Russians), who weren’t prepared to go along with the US. Blair didn’t want that, as he feared that this would affect his country’s special relationship with the US.

He wrote to George Bush, “I will be with you whatever…” Blair, though, was reportedly aware that things could go disastrously wrong like: “Suppose it got militarily tricky--- suppose Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties…suppose the Arab Street finally erupted…suppose the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded and real Iraqis…decide to offer resistance…suppose that any difficulties are magnified and seized on by hostile international opinion… The possibility of unintended consequences will persist through and beyond the military phase.” He also supposed, if “Saddam…let off WMD”. Apart from the WMD part, which was a red herring, almost everything that Blair supposed in his letter has come true and worse.

Even though Chilcot report looks into British involvement and role in the Iraq war, it indeed is a perceptive and exhaustive dissection of the disasterous Iraq war saga. Indeed, the political decision to invade Iraq, already made by the Bush administration, sought conveniently corroborative and manufactured intelligence to prosecute their case. And Blair, even if he had some qualms, nevertheless willingly decided to follow the US lead. For instance, as Chilcot said, “The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s WMDs were presented with a certainty that was not justified.” In plain words, the threat was non-existent, but to make a case for invading Iraq it was necessary to present the worst-case scenario. He said that the British government’s policy on Iraq “was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments.” And: “They were not challenged as they should have been.” Britain, therefore, accepted the US lead regarding intelligence and timetable for the invasion without a supportive Security Council resolution, which wasn’t forthcoming.

The post-invasion disaster and chaos was not unpredictable. Blair’s defense that there was no way of knowing what followed was dismissed by Chilcot: “We do not agree that hindsight is required—the risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and al-Qaeda activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.” In other words, a rigorous examination of what might go wrong, though known, was brushed aside as Operation Iraqi Freedom was considered to have moral validity of its own. And where morality and power were on the side of the attackers, what could go wrong? It was as if the US-led invasion was a blessed enterprise against an important segment of the axis of evil--- other two being Iran and North Korea—that might have been next on the hit list. Bush seemed to believe, and James Merritt, once President of the Southern Baptist Convention, reportedly told him that he was God’s instrument at that time after the 9/11 attacks on US soil.  

The conservative cabal around George Bush, like his vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and others who crafted the Iraq policy and much more, had felt that the US had missed opportunities to reshape the world after it became the only superpower, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the nineties. Following 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US soil, the Bush administration turned its attention to the Middle East, particularly Iraq, where his father had not quite finished the job by leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War; even though the country was subjected to most comprehensive sanctions and Saddam was hardly a threat. But it was decided that Saddam’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and since he was not willing to surrender, the country was invaded in March 2003 to remove him and his (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction.

However, it was not imperative for the United Kingdom to join the US in this enterprise. But Blair did, earning him the title of “Washington’s poodle”, fearing that any independent role might damage Britain’s special relationship with the United States. However, France and Germany managed to maintain their independence without any real damage to their relationship with their ally, the US, even though Washington wasn’t happy about it. As Chilcot has noted, dwelling on the lessons for Britain, that “all aspects” of military intervention would “need to be calculated, debated and challenged with the utmost rigor”, meaning it was not done when London simply followed Washington in invading Iraq.

Even though the US was leading the charge to reshape the world to its dictates, starting with the Middle East, Britain was a willing partner. Bush and Blair governments were keen on pushing a new ‘enlightened’ version of imperialism. There was talk of creating new facts and new narratives for a new world. The terminology like Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the axis of evil, were supposed to end any argument about the desirability of ridding the world of ‘immoral’ and ‘criminal’ regimes and systems. It was assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome and embrace the US and British invasion designed to liberate them from Saddam Hussein’s yoke and giving them the ultimate gift of freedom and democracy. And we know, even without the damning Chilcot report, how the entire enterprise of invading Iraq has unfolded with the terrorism of IS and its affiliates and ‘lone wolf’ killers inflicted on the world.   

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.