In Britain's most paleocon newspaper, one of the two Britons on the Academic Board of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Mark Almond, writes:
This East versus West divide is ominously
reminiscent of the Cold War. Is Syria becoming today’s version of the proxy war
fought out between the White House and the Kremlin in Afghanistan in the 1980s?
If America and Britain pour in weapons to back
the rebels, will we be installing another Taliban-style regime despite the
lessons of 9/11? Are the Russians and Chinese storing up antagonism among Arabs
by backing Assad?
In reality, the various factions actually
fighting in Syria are pursuing their own interests first.
Whoever wins a long, drawn-out fight is likely to be the hardest of hardliners
and not a cosy partner for past backers.
In an ordinary war, you only need to
know who your enemy is – if you are going to intervene in a messy civil
war, you need to be certain who your friends are.
Neither President Obama nor Mr Cameron can
guarantee which rebels might get any high-tech weapons supplied by us.
But Putin or the Chinese can’t really count on
Assad’s Syria in the future. Our shared uncertainty about what could come out
of the Syrian civil war should unite East and West.
Who would want to be in William Hague’s skin if
he authorised weapons supplies to Syrian fundamentalists which ended up killing
innocent people on the streets of London?
But Putin cannot really think that Assad is the
only friend Russia needs in the Middle East.
Siren voices in Washington, London and Moscow warn against any compromise. But
these hardliners overlook that neither West nor East has any self-interest
worth sacrificing for the sake of a Syrian proxy.
Prestige ought not to trump good sense. Yet each
must also recognise that neither can lever its protégé to victory if the other
is bent on backing his client to the hilt.
And there are real dangers for us
all. A proxy war risks getting out of control if Syria fires Russian
anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Nato planes enforcing a no-fly zone.
Since Russia and China are big exporters to us,
what interests do they have in cutting off their noses to spite their faces?
But if the West tries to humiliate them over Syria, their hardliners will see
it as ‘proof’ that, if Assad goes, the West will back rebels against them next.
What our leaders need to use the G8 to do is to
sort out what is essential to them in Syria. Then they’ll know what can
be negotiated on.
They should use next month’s proposed Geneva peace talks to
knock the heads of their various Syrian friends (and enemies) together.
Diplomacy is needed now. Neither the West nor
Russia thinks it’s worth risking ‘our boys’ on the ground to win the war for a
local ally.
If they recognise that their interests in the Middle East are
better served by compromise than endless proxy war, there is a slim hope for
Syria’s long-suffering people.
It may not be pretty but haggling and backroom
deals are the best possible route to peace.
After our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, is
anyone betting that the West has finally worked out the magic formula for
installing peace and democracy by force?
No comments:
Post a Comment