Conclusion of the first round of the peace talks on Syria without any agreement or tangible progress is not surprising, complexity of the situation and the conflict having claimed over 60,000 lives already. What started as a movement to replace the Ba’athist government is being exploited by external forces centered on to the Al Nusra Front (ANF), Syria Islamic Front, Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, Islamic Front etc. Al Nusra is a known affiliate of Al Qaeda and US bloggers blame America for helping Al Qaeda embed in Syria while fighting them in Afghanistan. They also allege US used Al Qaeda in Libya and Iraq. At the time when the US was to strike Syria, questions were raised why US wanted to act as the air force of Al Qaeda. In 2013, Pakistan Taliban have also entered Syria and is helping the rebels. The stated fear of the US was Syrian chemical weapons but air strikes could not have targeted chemical facilities due to collateral damage. So, strikes could have targeted Syrian command and control centres to facilitate US troops crossing over from the Jordan-Syria border, with speculation that Special Forces of US and Jordan were already operating inside Syria by proxy or themselves. A cross section also believes that the US strikes also wanted to signal stoppage of the proposed Iran-Syria-Iraq-Europe oil pipeline (supported by Russia-China) that clashed with the Qatari oil pipeline.
While the US decision to not strike Syria is attributed to lack of support by the Senate, British Parliament and a UN go-ahead, it could also be attributed to Russian intelligence (FSB). As per reports, the FSB had reportedly intercepted conversation between executives of a top British mercenary outfit about plans to provide a chemical weapon (resembling an old Russian one) for use in Syria (as proposed by Qatar and approved by Washington), and Putin had threatened the US to expose this plot if a decision to strike Syria was taken. Whether the subsequent Sarin gas strike in Syria was by the Syrian government or courtesy chemical weapon supplied by the said British mercenary organisation is difficult to guess. Interestingly, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia had reportedly met President Putin earlier, hinting that if Russia didn’t oppose strikes on Syria, not only the Russian naval base in Syria would remain protected but there would be no terror strikes during the Sochi winter Olympics – outright blackmail that angered Putin and led to Bandar being booted out.
The Russian stand has been that it condemns all violence. Russia doesn’t blindly support the Syrian government; since 25-30 percent killed are Syrian security forces, Syrian government is hardly fighting poorly armed civilians; crucial for international community to condemn violence by both sides; political opposition must dissociate from extremists, and; armed opposition groups and government forces should withdraw simultaneously from population centres. Russia also maintains that the West and some Arab partners (implying Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc?) are siding with the opposition unilaterally, not letting the Syrian population decide their fate through normal peace process.
China is Syria’s third largest importer, her interests in Syria and the region coincide with Russia and both would like the present Syrian government to continue. It is also interesting to note that while the Shia-Sunni clash has been engineered and aggravated by the West by design, Syria and Iraq both never had such a problem. One look at the appointments in the Syrian government and its military would dispel such notion. With mounting confrontation in Asia Pacific that is bound to overflow into the Indo-Pacific region, it is but natural that China would not like US and Western designs to succeed in the Middle-East. In addition, the somewhat slowing economy of China requires she captures as many markets as possible. So China for the present is content with US-NATO supplying the rebels and opposition forces while Russia services the weapon needs of the Syrian government.
The refugee problem that has assumed strategic proportions in Syria is certainly not the creation of the Syrian government alone. It is a well thought out strategy that has been put in place based on creating human tragedy of gigantic proportions to force the UN give the green signal for intervention. While media has been focusing on the refugees streaming out from Syria in thousands in all directions including across the Syria-Jordan border, little mention is made as to where the fighters from terrorist organisations and weapons are pouring into Syria. For example, there are reports of thousands of fighters sneaking into Syria from across the 800 km Turkey-Syria border, allegedly in concert with Turkish authorities. So, whose bidding is Turkey doing – US, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States? Then Syria and Iran are strategic allies. If the US was worried about the chemical weapons of Syria, it was equally worried about Iran’s nuclear program. Interestingly, US-Syria relations had taken an upswing post 9/11 but deteriorated with the US invasion of Iraq. Dr Subhash Kapila, in his article “US Strategic Blunders in Southwest Asia, wrote in the South Asia Analysis Group on 18th March 2013,“Strategically, the US cannot expect to sustain a long-term and effective presence in South West Asia by a constant and vicious demonization of Iran……… Iran commands the Shia Crescent extending from Lebanon, through Syria and to the borders of Afghanistan…… the current de-stabilization of Syria through a US-Saudi Arabia contrived war is more targeted at Iran than Syria.” This may well be true and the US inability to strike Syria may well have generated the present US-Iran rapprochement, which may yet change with passage of time since geopolitics are constantly in flux.
Though President Bashar has indicated that he may not contest elections in 2014, it is questionable how effectively elections can be conducted in the first place with conflict raging in Syria. The bottom-line is that transition to a peaceful democratic transition may remain an illusion with the US, its allies and Gulf States supporting and arming the opposition, pumping in proxies, and Russia-China-Iran supporting the Syrian government. Should conflict levels rise and UN authorise intervention, the long term effects may be a country devastated even more. The Syrian tangle will remain unresolved till the players of the Great Game in Syria and the region come together to actually stop orchestrating conflict and force a peaceful solution – prospects of which don’t appear bright with the just concluded first round of peace talks.
The author is veteran Lieutenant General of Indian Army. Views expressed are personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment