Global and Regional Alliances Development on Syria

“The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals.... The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times..”.... Vladmir Putin (Valdai Club speech, October 2014)

From a tale of twist and turns, the Syrian conflict has metamorphosed from that of an Arab Spring solidarity protest to a full blown civil war with religious undertones, serving a practical laboratory for proxy warfare pitting regional and World powers against each other.

Illustration of the current Syrian conflict trend
Source:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/untangling-the-overlapping-conflicts-in-the-syrian-war.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Like an inselberg, the Assad regime has weathered the odds against it albeit the resultant carnage on the Syrian human and infrastructural milieu consequentially, of that Country’s 22million pre-war population, over 250,000 have been killed, about 7.6 million are internally displaced, 4million have fled the Country’s borders and have increasingly fuelled the European migrant/refugee crises. As such, on the current global scale, one out of every four refugees globally is Syrian.

Defying all peace mediation and palliative odds, especially with the active participation of Russia, the Syrian case is actively taking the course of leaving the last bleeding man be declared as victor; for in series of mis-calculated foreign intervention from regional and global powers, the resultant has been a creation of hydra-headed belligerents with no clear vision for the sustenance of the Syrian State.

With Western powers standing aloof at the onset of the Syrian conflict, regional powers of the Middle East championed by Saudi Arabia footed the belligerent cause against the Syrian government in terms of funding and arms. Seeing an opportunity for a balance of power, the Iranian government shored up support for its alleged Shiite spiritual ally in opposition against what it saw as an unbecoming resurging Sunni dominance from the Arab Spring. In the end, rebel groups funded by the Saudi Arabia led coalition of Middle East powers metamorphosed into hardliner Jihadist groups which in turn became a menacing threat to religious tolerance within the region.

Nevertheless, Western powers saw no glory in changing their stance against the Assad regime, choosing instead to derecognize the Assad government in favour of the opposition Free Syria Army. In spite of this, the Assad regime was learnt credence as it labelled the belligerent opposition as ‘terrorists’ and in the real sense of fact, the Syrian political Opposition had no control over the fighters and a times, the opposition belligerents had had to turn the guns on each other as there were gaps in central command control and ideological/religious stance to the conflict.

A caricature cartoon of Russia's Putin propping up Syria's Assad
Source:http://eastwestpublic.com/2015/10/09/russias-syrian-bombing-gives-boost-to-iran/

Amidst the ensuing chaos, Russia stood arms akimbo, preferring to support the Syrian government with resolutions and its veto power at the United Nations. As such, when the United States threatened the Syrian government with airstrikes if it crossed the ‘red line’ in the use of Chemical weapons, Russia pushed for the decommissioning of Syria’s Chemical weapons arsenal which in turn was surprisingly successful.

For four long years since the start of the Syrian conflict, it seems unending as it has defied the cerebral diplomatic intrigues of the World’s top diplomats in Koffi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi. Not even peace summits in the historic peace convention city of Geneva have brought any beacon of hope to resolving the Syrian conflict.

With all parties and proxies standing firm on their lines and not ready to yield ground, the Syrian conflict became embroiled in a stalemate, threatening to partition the country alongside the line of control of the belligerents. Not even the menacing advance the Islamic State (IS) identified as a common enemy to all parties in the conflict has united the belligerents. Instead, each belligerent has sought to deal with the Islamic State individually whilst pursing their individual causes against each other.

With the Syrian president openly admitting that he might have to concede territory to the enemy in order to consolidate its stronghold in the face of declining manpower, the Russians have seized the initiative to step up military support for the regime, whilst claiming to be doing its bit in fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism as manifested by the Islamic State.

Whilst the United States and its NATO allies have stepped up sortie attacks on Islamic State positions and refusing to collaborate with the Syrian government, rather choosing to identify ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ to train and arm as foot soldiers, the tactics has apparently failed, as the Islamic State keep capturing more territory and the US trained rebels keep melting away in battle against ISIS and gifting the enemy military hardware.

Russia on the other hand has chosen to identify with the Syrian government in the fight against the Islamic State and as such, entered into a de facto coalition with all parties supporting the Syrian government such as Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah.

Source: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34474362

Despite the identification of a common enemy in ISIS by all belligerents, they have failed to unite under a common cause. This calls to question the historicity of Western powers if they have lessons from World War two when a coalition of Allied powers in United States, United Kingdom and Russia had to fight concomitantly to ensure the defeat of NAZI Germany, and the happenstances thereafter which resulted in the cold war.

As regional and global powers pursue their interests in the Syrian conflict, it must be noted that an inflammable situation which could ignite into a wider conflict is in the offing, as these conflicting powers could accidentally turn their weapons on one another.

Seventy years after the end of the most devastating war in Human history, there are still several applicable lessons to be learnt from World War Two. Regional and Global powers party to the Syrian conflict will profit the cause of global peace by taking revision courses from that epoch.

“The crisis has reached a point where, unless we end the war, the country will slowly empty itself — a haemorrhaging of its brightest and best, it’s young and old, escaping unspeakable horrors in the largest refugee migration since World War II, until all that will be left are the fighters”..... KIM GHATTAS

THE RESONANCE OF WORLD WAR 1: 1914 AND A CENTURY AFTER

Just over a hundred years ago, the armies of the World’s Great powers were arrayed against each other to do battle in what was latter called ‘the great war’ or The First World War--- The War to end all Wars!

Enticed by a rise in industrialization, the race for sophisticated armament of the day and the penchant for global influence in colonial empires amongst the great powers (Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia and Austria-Hungary);  the conflict was sparked by the assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28^th June 1914, thus igniting the gun powder in the Balkan Peninsula that ultimately conflagrated Europe and the wider World in a gruesome conflict otherwise called the first World War.

Arrival of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo (28th June 1914)

"Our ghosts will wander through Vienna, stroll around the palaces and scare the masters."….. anonymous Serbian writ

It indeed happened that the World Powers lined themselves in series of infectious alliances that obliged them to go to war even when their respective countries were not directly under attack. And so after the June assassination, and a diplomatic moribund July, War was contiguously declared from the first day of August as Germany declared war On Russia, and on France by 3^rd August. Great Britain declared war against Germany on August 4 as Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.

A live relic of an helmet on a WW1 battle feild
Source:bbcnews.com

‘The lamps are going out over all Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.’…….

Edward Grey (1862 - 1933)

British statesman.

Although almost all the belligerent nations were European and the major battle fields were in Europe, the war transcended from being a European one to a global one as the colonial powers moved to seize colonial territory from their enemies. As such, Africans had the War experience as Great Britain fought and seized German colonial territory in West Africa (Togo and Cameroun), East Africa (Tanzania) and South Africa (Namibia); whilst a combined British, French and Japanese effort annexed all German interests in the Far East and South Pacific. With the United States entering the War on the side of the Allies on 6^th April 1917 after 3 years of conflict, the War truly assumed its status as a ‘World War’— as it had effectively engaged all the continents.

‘In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place.’….

John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Canadian poet and physician.

A reenactment of the march of Gordon Highlanders on the puppy feilds of Belgium
Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715756/Showered-million-poppies-Soldiers-stand-huge-red-cloud-symbolise-Great-War-dead-enact-scenes-conflict.html

From initial skirmishes at Liege to the serial battles at Mons, Marne, Ypres, Somme, Verdun, Gallipoli, Jutland, Basra, Asiago, Isonzo, Brusilov, Tannenberg and the Masurian lakes countless souls perished in astonishing industrial scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpCUFw-EnNw

‘They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.’…….

Laurence Binyon (1869 - 1943)

British poet and art historian.

In response to the slaughter of World War I.

Poems for the Fallen, "For the Fallen"

The War finally came to an end on the 11^th hour of 11^th November 1918 with the signing of the Armistice agreement and capitulation of the foremost Central Power belligerent in Germany not after some indelible marks have been imprinted in history by the effect of the War; Viz:

1.  Unlike other Wars before this, any conflict between global powers or their client states will automatically spiral effect in dragging nations across continents to a multi-faceting conflict whose resultant will surpass the initial conflicting terms.

2.  With the Use of Chlorine gas by the belligerents, ammunitions will now be classified as ‘conventional’ and ‘Un conventional’ (Weapons of Mass Destruction) weapons.

3.  Civilian centres such as Villages, Towns and Cities will now serve as battle grounds thus effectively negating the notion that wars are to be fought at some distant fields.

4.  The advent of the bombs, rapid firing machine guns and chemical weapons meant that thousands of Soldiers could be mowed down in minutes as seen in the battles of Marne and Ypres. Indeed a Millions of souls could perish in seconds after these weapons were improved on much later after that war.

5.   Regardless of the Military might of the belligerent, wars cannot be independently fought without considering attendant and after effects of conflicting interests and ideologies which will ultimately engage non-belligerent nations in subtle or active Warfare.

 It’s a hundred years spanning ten decades of historical epochs since the First World War was ignited; however, a century on, the world still stands a risk of being dragged to a war of contiguous effect as it was a hundred years ago viz;

1.  Like pre-1914, the World’s powers are now aligned in seeming loose alliance of East and Western bloc ideology as fronted by Russia and the United States.

2.  As seen in the Balkans in pre-1914 of a perfected disdain for occupying forces, the Nations of the Middle East have taken this stance in open disdain for Western Military presence in their lands. Like 1914, the Middle East is serving a simmering ‘Balkan effect’ in global politics.

3.  As it was in 1914 when the War was forcefully promulgated upon Africa due to colonial subjugation; though now independent, African Nations will once again be dragged into a conflict involving the Great Powers as their territories will serve as Military bases for these powers. The US already has an ‘African Command’ AFRICOM bases in Djibouti as the French Military has a ubiquitous presence in almost all its former African colonies. China has so far been only economically present in Africa but one cannot ignore the trade in Chinese and Russian arms by some African countries. They too might come calling for higher military commitment in the event of a conflict.

The resultant of the First World War did not entirely spell doom and gloom for the World as it ensured:

1.  Nationalistic consciousness in colonized territories. That in a sense brought about the emergence of all Nation States as seen on today’s maps.

2.  It brought about the awareness for international cooperation and collaboration amongst the Nations of the World. Though eventually moribund and toothless in effect, the ‘League of Nations’ formed after the First World War was a model precursor to the United Nations and its numerous under-agencies which has in  some ways helped mitigate dire consequences of pertinent global issues.

Like Pre-1914 as seen today, Nations of the World do not foresee a large scale global conflict due to:

1.  Economic and social ties and interdependence

2.  Mutually assured destruction  due to the sophistication of modern arms

Nevertheless, we might be fooled into a state of ‘false global security’ by not taking into account the simmering events of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the wider Middle East conflict from the Arab spring, the Ukrainian tensions and pockets of conflicts around Africa—all of which ironically were creations from the aftermath of the First World War as seen in:

1.  The Arab revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916

2.  The Balfour declaration of 1917 announcing Jewish rights to Palestine

3.  The emergence of a bipolar world with from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917

4.  The awakening of Nationalism, creation of borders by colonial powers with no respect for historical ties and cultures of peoples of the dominated lands as seen in Africa and the Middle East (The Sykes and Picot agreement). As such, agitations for a redrawing of National ‘colonial borders’ could simmer into some sort of global conflict.

‘Six million young men lie in premature graves, and four old men sit in Paris partitioning the earth.’…

Anonymous

 Referral to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I, attended by the leaders of France, Britain, Italy, and the United States.

The World's big four leaders (US, Great Britain, France and Italy) at the treaty of Versailles in 1919
Source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Treaty-of-Versailles-Ends-World-War-I.html

Yes peace was proclaimed in 1918 after the War that was said to end all Wars and a treaty was signed in Versailles in 1919. But several wars involving Great powers as a resultant of their actions and deeds from the aftermath of the First World War has been fought. There was even a Second World War! And today several global conflicts threatening to drag numerous Nations to battle looms. Is 2014 not just a Hundred years back?

‘This is not peace: it is an armistice for twenty years.’……..

Ferdinand Foch (1851 - 1929)

French soldier, 1919.

Remark at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

The Syrian Conflict: Any Hopes From Geneva II?

"Don't expect anything from Geneva II. Neither Geneva II, not Geneva III nor Geneva X will solve the Syrian crisis. The solution has begun and will continue through the military triumph of the state."…….. Ali Haidar (Syria's National Reconciliation Minister)

From the frenzy immersions of the wave of the Arab Spring that swept across the Middle East in 2011, one nation where the simmering dregs of the revolution will not dry quickly is Syria.

From pockets of mild solidarity Arab Spring protest in 2011, the Syrian situation fast spiralled into a full blown irreconcilable civil war with the belligerents serving as proxy armies for regional powers from the Islamic Shia and Sunni divide in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

                                                                                  

Starting from political agitations, the Syrian conflict also smouldered along its major sectarian religious divide; thus making any peace settlement difficult as both parties to the conflict label the enemy as the infidels. Barring direct intervention from foreign powers across the West East divide, the Syrian situation continues to plunge to a hopeless abyss carnaging over 150,000 casualties and dispersing over 4 million of its citizens as refugees while leaving the once tranquil settlements of Homs, Aleppo, Deraa, Maloula as battlefield ruins.

Devasted Aleppo, the Industrial hub of Syria

After defying all appeasement avenues despite agreements and moves to dismantle Syria’s Chemical weapons arsenal, the US, UN and Russia agreed to bring the warring sides to Geneva to talk peace.

John Kerry (US), Lakhdar Brahimi and Sergei Lavrov (Russia) at the opening of the Geneva II Conference in January 2014

In the words of Ban ki Moon, he says it would be "unforgivable not to seize this opportunity" that has left more than 100,000 people dead and driven 9.5 million from their homes. And so for the first time during the Syrian conflict, Russia and the US had a common understanding to bring the warring parties to the negotiation table in what is to be known as Geneva II peace talks which was especially made urgent after the chemical attack in Ghouta on 21^st August 2013.

As party to the Conflict, the Syrian government of Bashir Al Assad has to negotiate with the Syrian Opposition to achieve a tangible peace settlement for Syria. For the case of the Syrian opposition, there exists a wide gulf between the political and armed opposition although both parties are united in their desire to achieve a post Assad Syria. Compounding the position of the Syrian opposition is the divergent intentions of the armed opposition who are at best serving the interest by proxy of regional powers while the political opposition do not in effect have control over the armed opposition.

Coming to Geneva to negotiate may be a plausible attempt at achieving peace, and considering the devastatory depth of the Syrian conflict, necessary concessions must be made by the warring parties.

The government of Assad has to stay put at least for the short term future.

There cant be a successful military end to the conflict

Acknowledging this fact, a rebuilding phase can then be inaugurated via a transition government. Things may then begin to fall into place and twill be easy to rein down the extremists.

For all the care of the cause of the warring parties, the concern should shift from fluidic gains on the battle field to the welfare of Syria and her citizens. For all the world cares for, the Syrian conflict is becoming a pain in the neck for her much smaller neighbours in Lebanon and Jordan where the Syrian refugee crises is drowning the population of the host countries. With two rounds of the Geneva II talks ended, the hopes and fate of the Syrian people lies on a yet to be decided third round--- and will all parties learn from the past deadlocks? The only good thing is that the talks are in place. Hoping it does spring an eternal hope to end the stodgy nature of the Syrian conflict.

‘The Geneva process is destined to remain stagnant unless its patrons adapt to the realities on the ground and reframe what constitutes core political issues and points of negotiation. The current realities suggest that the solution of the battlefield is preferred to that of the negotiating table. Until this changes, the Geneva negotiations will remain political theatre’……Samer N Abboud (Assistant Professor of International Studies at Arcadia University,  Pennsylvania.)