An Impotent West

A short walk out of DIT’s Aungier Street and you’ll come to a little restaurant called Damascus Gate, a lovely Syrian eatery with an average of four out of five stars. For its customers the word ‘Damascus’ is synonymous with good service, good lamb and strong eastern coffee. To others, the word ‘Damascus’ might evoke memories of the 1,400 individuals who were killed in a chemical weapons attack on August 21st.Amidst the brutal conflict in Syria, many have accused Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government of launching soviet issue missiles carrying Sarin gas on their own people, in an attempt to weaken the rebellion. Since then the country has been plunged into a civil war which shows no sign of stopping, and which to date has claimed the lives of over 100,000 people. The facts themselves are well known; the death toll, the refugees. But what have the international community done about it? The short answer really is nothing. The U.S has blown hot air about strikes and a moral call for intervention, the UK has remained quiet since its sigh of relief following the dismissal of intervention by its parliament. All the while, the Russian president Vladimir Putin is publishing letters in the New York Times asking the American people to ‘stay out of it’. However, that is not to say that I am outright advocating military intervention, the geo-political implications of intervention are of course staggering. The zeal and momentum behind the Arab Spring have long since run out, this is no longer a case of Good vs. Evil, Dictatorship vs. Democracy, lets topple a statue so we can all break for tea. The situation in Syria is far more complex. It is an amalgam of warring tribes, fractured religions and subdued superpowers.

In order to piece together the Jigsaw there are certain things which we must understand. Assad’s government is seen by many in the region as the political face of Shiite Muslims, backed by other Shiite controlled countries such as Iran. The rebels in the main represent the Sunni Muslim population, the extremist fractions of which have the unofficial support of the Saudi Arabia. Russian support for the ‘Alawi’ government of Assad stems from a long held connection between the two countries. Russia needs a stable Syrian regime in order to maintain some control in the region, hence the couple of billion worth of weapons which they have sold to the Assad regime.  America on the other hand has drawn themselves once more into the role of ‘World police’. Although few in congress have answered ‘no chance’ to the idea, given the terrifying similarity to the beginning of Iraq War. The use of chemical weapons, which has been almost indisputable (the secretary general of the U.N Ban Ki Moon would agree with me here), crossed a ‘red line’, one which the U.S is finding hard to ignore. ….And then comes the face saving. Somewhere in all the chaos of international diplomacy, Russia jumped on the U.S secretary of State, John Kerry’s statement that there was no way that the Assad regime would give up its chemical weapons, figuratively saying, ‘well, you know what America? If it will keep you and the world police out of Syria, we’ll make sure that by 2014 not a single soul will have to worry about chemical weapons in the region (you may have to worry about the doomsday arsenal of weapons we have sold them, but it’ll all be internationally accepted form of slaughter, none of the ‘froth corrupted lungs’ stuff which seems to rile you up so badly)’.

Now we come to the situation as it stands to date, a complex and incredibly difficult seizure of chemical weapons, the locations of which are to be disclosed by Assad’s regime. The logistics of this comprehensive seizure are mind boggling. Difficulties which come to mind include: 1) a bloodied Civil war raging right across the region where any western team, American or not, will be treated with sniper fire and shelling; 2) Assad will be holding onto his weapons like a child to its blanket. Chemical weapons have been stockpiled by Assad as a show of serious force, if he was to give these up it would certainly weaken Syria’s position as a dangerous force in the region. Should we consider how truthful he has been so far (the Assad regime had only admitted to having the weapons after pressure from Russia to accept the deal) it would not be beyond the realms of reality for him to want to hold back some of the chemical stockpile.

The disarmament of these chemical weapons is, in essence the ‘international community’ saying to us we must let Syria plunge itself into chaos. All we can do is limit civilian casualties, and if possible aid the 1.2m people who have been displaced. Assad himself has said in an interview, published in a French newspaper: “The Middle East is a powder keg….chaos and extremism will spread. There is a risk of a regional war.” And that is what the West fears the most. A destabilized Middle East, the rise of Islamic extremism, and an eventual attack on Israel which will drag the U.S into another world war. Syria is fast becoming another Kosovo, another Rwanda, another massacre, which will not only highlight the impotence of the UN, but one which will call into question the United States hunger to police the world. A lack of assertive American action will ring out across the region and as a result agitate a fearful Israel who may begin to take ‘defensive measures’. The world watches as Syria sits on the precipice of annihilation, but no one knows how to pull them back. It seems that our generation may be bearing witness to the end of serious American ‘imperialism’, the displacement and destruction of an entire country, and an ‘international community’ which will be about as effective as a eunuch in an Arabian brothel.