#Syria

by

Syria: What does Ahmed al-Sharaa mean?

The west and Israel seem to be concerned about what Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is saying. His pronouncements both in recent years and since the HTS victory in Syria have been measured and seem to reject the idea that his aim is to establish a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Syria. However, his past connections with the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and Al Qaeda are pointed to, as is his previous nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani as evidence of his ideological position. They say they want to see actions not just words.

Given the experience of diplomacy in the region a degree of scepticism is sensible. Fine words butter no parsnips as they say. Furthermore, words do have a remarkable degree of flexibility in the Middle East. The term “defence” comes to mind.

However, given what went before, in the murderous Assad regime, and the scenes of celebration from Syrians across the country it is difficult to simply dismiss al-Sharaa. Given this most nations and agencies seem content to adopt a wait and see policy. Wanting to see if the promising words do get translated into actions.

Israel, as so often, is the exception here. It is busily defending itself against an attack, of which there is neither sign nor capacity, by bombing any and all military facilities in Syria. They are also annexing land inside Syria to secure Israel’s border.

If the scepticism of western, commentators, journalists, diplomats and politicians proves well founded then Syria’s appalling condition may simply continue under new management. If this is the case it will confirm a view of islamist insurgents as simply interested in gaining power in order to impose a version of Islam which is authoritarian, brutal and misogynistic. Together with a new regime of corruption and crime.

If this happens it will reinforce the view that you can never trust such groups. That radical islamism, or indeed, for some, merely islamism, is an inherently authoritarian and regressive force. Given this they must be opposed and where possible eliminated and certainly kept away from any levers of power.

It is right that the establishment of another fundamentalist regime with no interest in the rule of law outside of strict religious control, or an independent, multi-faith civil society, or any form of participatory government would certainly add to the woes of the people of Syria with negative consequences for other peoples in the region.

It may however be the case that the threat that al-Sharaa poses is not if he does not do what he says but rather if he does do what he says.

Clearly, it is early days however the actions taken so far by the new regime led by al-Sharaa and HTS are unlike previous insurgent takeovers. No bloody reprisals, no looting and no ill-disciplined soldiery. No immediate implementation of fundamentalist Islamic social measures. Co-operation with the existing governmental institutions with the existing government being asked to remain in power until March 2025 to oversee a prcess of transition. Universities have been opened as opposed to closed. No curfews.

The army is being maintained not dissolved, the civil service is not being replaced with people whose qualifications are ideological fervour as opposed to administrative competence. The strong underpinning message and fundamental aim is claimed to be a commitment to rebuild Syria and the “…establishment of a government based on institutions and a “council chosen by the people“. It will be interesting to see what this council is in due course. But there have been clear commitments to religious tolerance, the rule of law, and a strong civil society.

What seems to have happened to date in Syria seems to be characterised by a very disciplined fighting force. Disciplined in their approach to fighting certainly. But more importantly, disciplined in victory.

al-Sharaa has been absolutely explicit that the country has no interest or capacity to engage in a war with Israel. This, despite the illegal and substantial programme of bombing being done by their neighbour to “defend” themselves.

What might ring alarm bells in the West and Israel is the commitment to a process of change by Syrians for Syrians. A demand that all foreign forces now leave Syria to allow them to get on with the immense task of rebuilding a country that has been systematically destroyed by a brutal despot.

One of the many problems of the region is the constant maneuvering by global powers and Arab neighbours to secure advantage it times of uncertainty. Attempting to obtain territorial or other advantages when states are riven with internal conflicts or political instability.

If al-Sharaa does substantially what he says, it will create a real dilemma for the West, Israel and other Arabic nations. A moderate muslim nation with genuinely independent institutions, religious tolerance and a genuine distribution of power is going to stick out, in the region, like a sore thumb.

Time will tell but al-Sharaa presents very well. His interview on CNN is illuminating as much for the tone and thoughtfulness of his comments as for what he actually says. He has learned the lesson of previous insurgent groups, terrorists or freedom fighters depending on you politics. He is not picking fights he knows he cannot win. There is no inflammatory rhetoric about the State of Israel or the West. He does not shy away from his Islamic faith but neither does he see this as monopolising power in a new Syria.

The. task of rebuilding Syria will be monumental. An economy that is on its knees. Fighting continuing in the north as the Kurdish cause has Turkey and the United States maneuvering for advantage. Its South Eastern border with Israel being eroded, together with a substantial bombing campaign as Israel defends itself. Loud calls for swift and public retribution against those of the former regime engaged in the systematic torture of relatives of suvivers. And on top of all this external forces trying to ensure al-Sharaa fails.

If it does not fall back into a brutal fundamentalism Syria could become a model for a new kind if Islamic regime with enourmous consequences across the whole of the middle east.

by

Foreign to Policy

As in everything he does President Trump brings to foreign policy a unique approach. One unweighed down by precedent, existing alliances, traditional enmities or common sense. I recently referred to a book “On Grand Strategy” written by JL Gaddis. He employs a distinction used by Isiah Berlin to categorise different types of leader. On the one hand there are those who know one big thing on the other those who know many small things. President Trump, again in a category of his own, knows nothing.

His foreign policy triumphs include haranguing NATO allies and threatening to pull out of the post-war bulwark against the Soviet Union and latterly Russia. Around the same time inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without US minders (no adults in the room) and sharing intelligence provided to the US by an ally. Keeping your adversaries confused is  the kind of mundane strategy the President eschews in favour of keeping his allies confused.

In the far east he has engaged in a costly and misguided tariff war with China in the belief that the tariffs he imposes will be paid by the Chinese.  He is currently having to bale out the US farming industry damaged by the consequential Chinese response.

His calming influence on the Korean peninsula has provided the pariah leader of the North with a boost to his legitimacy. Worse, the comparison between the ramblings of the dotard and the sharp responses of the rocket man, and their relative diplomatic success, has undermined the credibility of the leader of the free world. It really is only President Trump who could lose a shouting war with the leader of a failed state whose economy is ranked 204th in the world.

Unfortunately for the Middle East this has been an area that has benefited from a significant amount of Trump diplomacy. Red lines have been drawn with missile strikes on Syria following the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately the Syrians and their Russian allies went around the red lines with the indiscriminate use of Barrel Bombs and traditional munitions to kill civilians and combatants alike in their destruction of ISIS and those within Syria opposed to Assad.

Early on the President, keen to demonstrate his grasp of the dynamics of the region and fresh from dancing with the Saudis, announced that Quatar was promoting terrorism. This is a state which is home to the largest US military base in the region with some 11,000 US military personnel. A place that mistakenly thought it was an ally of the US. To be fair a misapprehension the State Department was also under.

Not content to bring his own distinctive brand of incompetence to the area Trump has secured the services of his son in law, Jared Kushner to deliver the “ultimate deal” resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This seems to be retreating into the long grass following the electoral problems of Benjamin Netanyahu and the “other” problems of Mohammed Bin Salman. These were the two key contacts for an honest broker deal which has shifted the American embassy to Jerusalem and stood by as more land has been taken by Israeli settlers. No doubt the Palestinians are waiting with bated breath for the revelation of the “ultimate deal”.

There is more, much more but the clowning achievement to date must be the tweet following his conversation with President Erdogan of Turkey, another great defender of democracy, giving the green light to an invasion of Syria. An invasion to exterminate the Kurdish fighters who had been fighting the US’s war against ISIS for them in Northern Syria and dying for that cause. How naive to believe that would qualify them as allies.

With his characteristic penchant for inconsistency however, as soon as preparations for invasion were announced President Trump Tweeted that “…if Turkey does anything that I in my great wisdom consider to be off limits I will totally destroy and obliterate the economy of Turkey…” So far his “great wisdom” has not judged indiscriminate shelling and air attacks, the creation of 100k refugees and the escape of ISIS sympathisers in the fog of war as off limits.

To date it seems, President Erdogan, Muhammad Bin Salman, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jin Ping, and most of all Vladimir Putin have run rings around the Wise One. His approach to foreign policy is straight out of the BSD school outlined in Liars Poker by Michael Lewis. Just about as crude and just about as beneficial.

The brilliant theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli did not suffer fools gladly. After reading a paper by a colleague he said “It is not even wrong.” The same criticism applies to Trump and his negotiation of relationships with foreign powers. It is a policy free, strategy free, tactic free, idea free zone. It is so bad that even the supine GOP is struggling to rationalise his actions much less support them.

We know that Trump is not up to the job and we know he doesn’t even understand that. The damage he is doing to the United States of America, politically, socially, economically, internationally just goes from bad to worse and the Republicans must be held to account for their collusion in this  process. We must pray in 2020 both he and they are.

 

 

by

“Martial Aid”

Given the nature of their engagement in “diplomacy by other means” it is perhaps not surprising that the most sensible comments on what ought to be the direction of foreign policy in the Middle East has come from a retired United States General. John R Allen was President Obama’s Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS. Before that he commended NATO and US forces in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013.

His analysis of the current situation in Syria, and the wider Middle East, sees victory over ISIS as a necessary response to an immediate threat. However, he believes military success on the battlefield will yield no lasting peace. Battlefield war will simply evolve into terrorism, or “war carried on by other means”. Worse, for those in the West, is that this might mean more atrocities on the streets of London, Paris and New York.

At the moment the major part of the conflict is elsewhere and the vast bulk of the resources of ISIS and their backers is devoted to a military campaign for territory. If that territorial battle is decisively lost will the leaders and ideologues of militant Islam give up? Will they recognise defeat and accept the status quo ante?

General Allen’s view is this is highly unlikely. Much more likely is a terrorist diaspora. Battalions of soldiers will go home or to some other part of the world and become dispersed cells of terrorists along the Al-Qaeda model. What is happening in Syria at the moment is a battle, which ISIS may well be losing. If they do lose the battle however, we should not think we have won the war. The problem will not go away it will simply relocate. This might be in the west or it may be elsewhere in the region causing another round of death, destruction and dislocation. The result of this will be even more people fleeing the region creating greater tensions in Europe as they attempt to find a safe haven.

The citizens of Europe and the United States are fed up with the endless turmoil in the Middle East. More they do not want to expend blood and treasure trying to solve what looks like an insoluble problem when they are being told they must accept another half decade of austerity. This general opposition is reinforced by a wholly reasonable belief that when it comes to wars in the region our political leadership are incompetent or duplicitous, or both.

It is clear that the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq had no thought to what needed to happen beyond a successful campaign on the battlefield. Similar criticisms were levelled at Mr Cameron’s unclear war aims when he proposed the intervention in Syria in 2013.

The reality the region remains one, which has strategic importance for the west and will continue to do so for years to come. Clearly the supply of oil is a major consideration with more than 25% of the world’s annual oil production coming out of the area. Significant disruption of this would have an impact on the global economy and the living standards of millions of people.

The populations of the region are unlikely to stop in their struggle for political freedoms and, perhaps more importantly, economic progress. This will result in more conflicts, population disruption and emigration to regions perceived as safer and offering more opportunity.

The option of ignoring the problem, therefore, is not a practical one. However, continuous forays into the region to shore up one regime or change another is not a viable long-term strategy either. General Allen made the point on the Today Programme on 22 October 2016 that what is needed is a radical, long-term plan of engagement with the region. He recognised the challenge of securing this. He felt however that until we “embrace the enormity of the newness of thinking” required we shall be condemned to “interminable conflict” in the region which we can neither ignore nor avoid being dragged into.

What new thinking was he proposing? In essence something like the Marshall Plan. This was the provision by the United States of something in excess of $12bn (circa $120bn in today’s money) to help rebuild Western European economies after the Second World War. The ambition of this is not lost on General Allen. However, you can see that without something along these lines, which helps establish a dynamic economy in the region benefiting the vast bulk of the population peace is likely to be a pipe dream.

Clearly progress needs to continue to be made on the military and diplomatic fronts however a prerequisite of effective democracy is social cohesion and that is only possible when people have a stake and a future in the society they live in. This can only happen if there is a functioning economy which provides gainful employment to the majority of the people.

Recent years have seen massive destruction of cities across the Middle East. They need to be rebuilt. As Lord Stern makes clear in his recent book “Why are we Waiting” the next twenty years of infrastructure development are going to be absolutely crucial to determining whether the world meets its targets of constraining global warming to less than 1.5 degrees C.

It would make sense for the West to work together to help fund the reconstruction of those cities and to treat it as a demonstration of what can be achieved in terms of low-carbon development, management and maintenance of urban centres.

All this may sound hopelessly idealistic but we should keep in mind that between 2003 and 2009 the Iraq war cost the UK alone £8.4bn. Whatever happens we and the rest of the West are going to be spending large amounts of money trying to stabilise recurrent conflicts in the region. Eventually we will either reconcile ourselves to perpetual war and the insecurity this generates or face the need to try a radically different approach. There is no doubt this would require political leadership in the West of the highest order and to be fair that doesn’t look likely to arise any time soon.
General Allen has pointed a way forward. He recognises this is a generational strategy not a tactical deployment between elections. Investing in this would support building the economies of the region, create employment and save millions of lives from the blight of war. It might also contribute to saving the planet. It must be worth a go.

by

In Harms Way

In the current debate about whether or not to bomb Syria, beyond the substantive issue, much has been made about the issue of leadership and particularly the way the Leader of the Opposition tried and failed to whip his party on the vote. His actions have been contrasted with the decisive leadership shown by the Prime Minister.

However on the issue of Syria I am not sure the Prime Minister has exercised the leadership one might want on an issue of this magnitude and urgency.

Everyone seems to agree that the first duty of government is to provide an effective defence of the country. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his top priority in government is the protection of UK citizens. Their physical safety trumps even the obsessive objective of dealing with the deficit.

When considering ways in which to maintain the security of the nation recourse to military action has to be a final resort. Putting our armed forces in harms way is something no Prime Minister should undertake lightly. Indeed Mr Cameron has made this point many times over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister must be convinced that there is a clear and substantial threat to the country that must be dealt with. What is more a threat which cannot be dealt with in any other way than by taking military action.

Given all this you might have thought the Prime Minister would want to act with all urgency to protect the citizens of the UK. Take the issue to Parliament as soon as possible. But no, he did not want to take the matter to Parliament until he was absolutely certain of a majority. But that begs the question what would he have done if no majority looked likely or indeed if he had lost the vote.

No one seems to have questioned why, once he was convinced of the threat, he did not go immediately to the House of Commons to press for the to extension of the war into Syria. Further, if he lost the vote why would he not go to the country. If the threat is grave enough to put soldiers in harms way then should it not be the first first duty of the Prime Minister to secure action as soon as possible.

It could well be said by supporters of the war “Well he got there in the end”. His delay was a carefully devised strategy to get the support he needed and now we have commenced the bombing he wanted. It feels however a bit like an exercise of leading from behind. Wait until the case is won and then go and make it.

I can’t help thinking the Prime Ministers’ very commendable commitment not to put troops in harms way is underpinned by an equally strong commitment not to put his job in harms way either. Even if he believes the country faces a clear and present danger.