This is not the time for US intransigency or muscle-flexing. What began as an insurgency in Syria two-and-a-half years ago—the state versus home-grown rebels—is today a proxy war waged by big powers, non-state actors, Islamist groups and global jihadist organisations.
Ordinary people’s aspirations have been thrown by the wayside by those willing to demolish lives and property for the sake of ultimate victory. Now a window of opportunity for dialogue has been opened by the Bashar Al Assad regime and its backers in Tehran and Moscow, but will US President Barack Obama seize the day?
The bitter truth is that there are no winners, which the Syrian regime and its allies, Moscow and Tehran, working to stave off US strikes, now tentatively acknowledge. In truth, the seven million refugees and displaced persons are demoralised and exhausted; they tired of living on charitable handouts, they want to be assured of their safety so they can return home. Does anyone involved in this complex poisonous soup care about them? How many are truly fighting in the name of democracy? Do they even know at this late stage what they’re fighting for?
There’s no getting away from it, in recent weeks, the more flexible camp is undoubtedly Al Assad’s regime/Russia/Tehran. Moscow has been pushing hard to revive the Geneva II conference, shelved by the Obama administration in response to the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21.
Obama cries crocodile tears for the victims of that attack, tears which do not extend to the 120,000 plus victims killed by conventional weapons. At the same time he’s poised to launch ‘Made in the USA’ missiles knowing there will be ‘collateral damage’ and is currently arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy weapons serving to prolong this century’s bloodiest civil war.
There are few constructive messages emanating from the White House. It sounds more bullying by the day in an effort to preserve the credibility of a president who is, arguably, America’s weakest and most indecisive in recent times.
Obama’s endless promotion of American ‘values’ sounds increasingly disingenuous when US drones are killing innocents in Pakistan and Afghanistan and when he’s insisted that Israel’s stockpile of chemical weapons, which Assad claims as the raison d’être for his own, is not up for negotiation.
No doubt there is cause for scepticism on the part of the US, its allies and the Syrian National Coalition over Al Assad’s stated willingness to put his country’s chemical weapons out of reach, even though he has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and has submitted details of his chemical stockpiles to the international regulatory body, the OPCW.
Scepticism is healthy, but it should not result in closed minds, especially when Syria’s deputy prime minister, Qadri Jameel, has made an astounding admission saying, “neither the armed opposition nor the regime is capable of defeating the other side.” Qadri told the Guardian that Damascus seeks peace talks and a ceasefire.
Adding grist to Jameel’s mill is an announcement from Al Assad’s closest regional ally, Iran, supporting Syria’s call for dialogue. In a column published in the Washington Post, Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani offered to help broker peace as part of Tehran’s thrust towards “constructive engagement” with the West.
That should be cause for celebration, but instead Obama is trying to throw a spoke in the wheel with his clamour for a UN Security Council Resolution under Chapter 7 opening the door to military intervention in the event Syria is adjudged as defaulting on its chemical weapons commitments.
Russia is opposed to any such resolution that would hang a Sword of Damocles over Al Assad’s head in the same way that it was hung over the head of Saddam Hussain falsely accused of non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
“A zero-sum Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss,” wrote President Rouhani, adding “unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism.”
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have taken a concerted approach on the need for talks without preconditions. Obama admits that military action is no solution to ending the civil war but, until now, he has failed to embrace this joint peace initiative. The almost vulgarly gung ho French president, Francois Hollande, has answered by openly expressing his aim of arming the opposition.
Syria’s National Coalition (SNC) has dismissed Rouhani’s offer as “not serious” because Iran is “part of the problem.” “It would be more useful if the Iranian leadership withdrew its military experts and fighters from Syrian territory,” read an SNC statement that takes no account of real politic and can only be interpreted to mean the opposition wants fighting to continue; never mind how many more lives are destroyed in the process.
Talking with the enemy, no matter how distasteful that might be, is the only solution other than boots on the ground to topple the regime. “It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them towards the patient labours of peace,” wrote the French author and Nobel Laureate, Andre Gide.
In this case, the US, its western allies and the Syrian opposition seem bent on proving him right.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
Obama should grasp the olive branch
Posted on September 24, 2013 by Linda S. Heard
This is not the time for US intransigency or muscle-flexing. What began as an insurgency in Syria two-and-a-half years ago—the state versus home-grown rebels—is today a proxy war waged by big powers, non-state actors, Islamist groups and global jihadist organisations.
Ordinary people’s aspirations have been thrown by the wayside by those willing to demolish lives and property for the sake of ultimate victory. Now a window of opportunity for dialogue has been opened by the Bashar Al Assad regime and its backers in Tehran and Moscow, but will US President Barack Obama seize the day?
The bitter truth is that there are no winners, which the Syrian regime and its allies, Moscow and Tehran, working to stave off US strikes, now tentatively acknowledge. In truth, the seven million refugees and displaced persons are demoralised and exhausted; they tired of living on charitable handouts, they want to be assured of their safety so they can return home. Does anyone involved in this complex poisonous soup care about them? How many are truly fighting in the name of democracy? Do they even know at this late stage what they’re fighting for?
There’s no getting away from it, in recent weeks, the more flexible camp is undoubtedly Al Assad’s regime/Russia/Tehran. Moscow has been pushing hard to revive the Geneva II conference, shelved by the Obama administration in response to the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21.
Obama cries crocodile tears for the victims of that attack, tears which do not extend to the 120,000 plus victims killed by conventional weapons. At the same time he’s poised to launch ‘Made in the USA’ missiles knowing there will be ‘collateral damage’ and is currently arming the Free Syrian Army with heavy weapons serving to prolong this century’s bloodiest civil war.
There are few constructive messages emanating from the White House. It sounds more bullying by the day in an effort to preserve the credibility of a president who is, arguably, America’s weakest and most indecisive in recent times.
Obama’s endless promotion of American ‘values’ sounds increasingly disingenuous when US drones are killing innocents in Pakistan and Afghanistan and when he’s insisted that Israel’s stockpile of chemical weapons, which Assad claims as the raison d’être for his own, is not up for negotiation.
No doubt there is cause for scepticism on the part of the US, its allies and the Syrian National Coalition over Al Assad’s stated willingness to put his country’s chemical weapons out of reach, even though he has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and has submitted details of his chemical stockpiles to the international regulatory body, the OPCW.
Scepticism is healthy, but it should not result in closed minds, especially when Syria’s deputy prime minister, Qadri Jameel, has made an astounding admission saying, “neither the armed opposition nor the regime is capable of defeating the other side.” Qadri told the Guardian that Damascus seeks peace talks and a ceasefire.
Adding grist to Jameel’s mill is an announcement from Al Assad’s closest regional ally, Iran, supporting Syria’s call for dialogue. In a column published in the Washington Post, Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani offered to help broker peace as part of Tehran’s thrust towards “constructive engagement” with the West.
That should be cause for celebration, but instead Obama is trying to throw a spoke in the wheel with his clamour for a UN Security Council Resolution under Chapter 7 opening the door to military intervention in the event Syria is adjudged as defaulting on its chemical weapons commitments.
Russia is opposed to any such resolution that would hang a Sword of Damocles over Al Assad’s head in the same way that it was hung over the head of Saddam Hussain falsely accused of non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
“A zero-sum Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss,” wrote President Rouhani, adding “unilateralism often continues to overshadow constructive approaches. The unilateral approach, which glorifies brute force and breeds violence, is clearly incapable of solving issues we all face, such as terrorism and extremism.”
Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have taken a concerted approach on the need for talks without preconditions. Obama admits that military action is no solution to ending the civil war but, until now, he has failed to embrace this joint peace initiative. The almost vulgarly gung ho French president, Francois Hollande, has answered by openly expressing his aim of arming the opposition.
Syria’s National Coalition (SNC) has dismissed Rouhani’s offer as “not serious” because Iran is “part of the problem.” “It would be more useful if the Iranian leadership withdrew its military experts and fighters from Syrian territory,” read an SNC statement that takes no account of real politic and can only be interpreted to mean the opposition wants fighting to continue; never mind how many more lives are destroyed in the process.
Talking with the enemy, no matter how distasteful that might be, is the only solution other than boots on the ground to topple the regime. “It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them towards the patient labours of peace,” wrote the French author and Nobel Laureate, Andre Gide.
In this case, the US, its western allies and the Syrian opposition seem bent on proving him right.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.