Daily Times

In my last article (Daily Times, September 6, 2013), I wrote about the possibility of an all-out proxy war between global and regional powers in Syria if Russia decides to furnish the Assad regime with unfettered support. However, it now transpires that the picture has profoundly changed as various stakeholders in the conflict have voluntarily or involuntarily altered their posturing on the issue.

The US government remained obdurate on the issue after President Obama announced his plan to strike Syria, but it is now ready, albeit reluctantly, to seek a political-cum-diplomatic resolution of the issue through the UN Security Council (UNSC). It was the same US that had stated unilateral strikes against Syria were inevitable, as the UNSC had been taken hostage by Russia. But President Obama is now cautiously willing to return to the UNSC in order to reach an amicable solution to the Syrian problem, saying that the US, Britain and France have agreed to work in consultation with Russia and China on a deal that would ensure “verifiable and enforceable destruction” of Syria’s chemical weapons. During his address to the nation, President Obama categorically announced that a resolution would be tabled at the UNSC “requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.”

Let us now try to demystify the reasons because of which the US hedged its bets at the eleventh hour. It was apparently a defensive but astute and timely political move by Russian President Vladimir Putin that compelled the US to defer — if not call off — its plan to launch a military strike against the Assad regime.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put forward a surprising political proposal to end the standoff on the Syrian issue. He offered that if establishment of international control over chemical weapons possessed by Syria thwarts military strikes by the US, Russia would start working with Damascus forthwith in pursuance thereof. “We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction,” he stated. The Assad regime was swift in responding to the Russian appeal. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said that his country welcomed Russia’s initiative, “based on the Syrian government’s care about the lives of our people and security of our country.” Russia even cajoled Damascus into joining the Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The previous stance of Russia and Syria on the issue was that the chemical weapons, which claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Syrian citizens, had been used by armed rebel fighters. Although Syria has still not confessed to perpetrating the savage attack, it has been implicitly admitted by Russia as well as the Assad regime that the latter possesses “weapons of mass destruction”.

Why did Russia and Syria go on the defensive? There were possibly two factors responsible for this. First, in spite of the failure of the US to prove that the Syrian government sanctioned the use of chemical weapons, it would require less effort for the superpower to implicate President Assad for possessing weapons of mass destruction after the launch of a military operation against Damascus. In the post-strike scenario, this would be instrumental for President Obama in justifying the attack as it could well be argued that the Syrian episode was not reminiscent of the Iraq saga. Moreover, it could usher in an ignominious isolation of Syria on the international front, which the Assad regime wants to ward off. Prima facie, it is worth mentioning here, there is a strong case against Syria pertaining to the possession of lethal chemical weapons. Syria is believed to have huge stockpiles of chemical weapons, including sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agents. The Assad regime has been allegedly manufacturing hundreds of tons of chemical agents at research and production facilities in al-Safira, Hama, Homs, Latakia and Palmyra. In July 2012, Syria confessed to possessing a stockpile of chemical weapons, which it claims were reserved for national defence against foreign countries. Syria is also one of the only five countries that have not signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits development, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical arms.

Second, both Russia and Syria realise that a US military operation, if effectively executed, could prove horrendously detrimental to their strategic interests in the region. It would be politically formidable — though not impossible — for Russia to render military and financial patronage to Syria after the launch of US military operations due to mounting international pressure. The Assad regime alone does not currently have the military might, gallantry and political clout to overpower the US military in any full-scale or limited-scale war.

It was against this backdrop that compromise somewhat became a compulsion for Russia and Syria in a bid to forestall the toppling of the Assad regime. Therefore, Russia and Syria have ostensibly backtracked by making an offer to destroy the latter’s chemical weapons stocks under an international framework. Nonetheless, the fresh posturing by Russia and Syria is not entirely defensive; it is also a deliberate and methodological political manoeuvre. It will prolong the rule of President Assad, resulting in Russia and Iran continuing to sway regional politics. Britain has already stated that the offer might be tantamount to “distraction tactics”. But the offer is primarily aimed at compounding the problems of the Obama administration, which will now come under colossal domestic and international pressure to pursue political or diplomatic means to resolve the Syrian issue. As a corollary, any assault on Syria would become highly improbable.

The defensive political move has already started to bear fruit for Presidents Putin and Assad as the international community seems receptive to the idea of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal under an international setup. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for measures to provide for the turning over and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. He said, “I am sure that the international community will take quick measures to make sure that these chemical weapons reserves are stored in a safe place and are to be destroyed.” Various countries will follow suit.

Furthermore, the backtracking of Russia and Syria has made the conundrum even more intractable for President Obama at the domestic level. The Obama administration has been scrambling to rally public and Congressional support for a military strike against Syria. But while the efforts were already not coming to fruition, they will be further sabotaged by the Russian move.

In the House of Representatives, President Obama would have to garner 218 votes for authorisation of military action. But only 25 members have expressed support for the strike. Meanwhile, 154 members have indicated that they will vote against the motion; 102 members seem inclined to vote against the resolution allowing President Obama to attack Syria, while 152 members are undecided on the issue. In the Senate, the Obama administration needs 51 votes. Here too, the situation is tilting against Obama. Only 23 senators have expressed support for the strike. On the flip side, 31 have suggested that they will vote against the motion; 10 are leaning towards rejection of the plan to strike Damascus, while 36 are undecided on the matter.

So technically, Obama will have to coax all undecided members in the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as dozens of negatively inclined legislators into voting for the motion authorising the use of force against the Assad regime. This seems highly improbable in the presence of the Russian offer because most politicians are now stressing that the Obama administration must exhaust all avenues of political or diplomatic resolution of the Syrian conflict.

Congress is not the only concern for President Obama. The results of public polls suggest a majority of the American people are also opposed to any unilateral military strike against Syria. According to the results of a survey conducted by CBS News and The New York Times, only 33 percent Americans approve of President Obama’s position on the Syrian situation while 56 percent people disapprove of the way the Obama administration has handled the issue. To make it even worse for the Obama administration, 61 percent Americans oppose military strikes against Syria while only 30 percent are in favour of using force against the Assad regime.

Thus the Russian offer has upended President Obama’s call for a military strike against Syria. Amidst overwhelming domestic and international pressure to demonstrate restraint on the issue, it has become impossible for the Obama administration to shrug off the offer to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons under an international framework. Moreover, the Congress is unlikely to support military action against Syria until the Obama administration fully pursues the aforementioned option. Resultantly, the imminent threat of an attack on Syria has tapered off and the world is likely to engage in rigorous dialogue on the issue for the coming few weeks.

The writer is a freelance journalist and a
student of politics. He can be reached at arsalanbilal@hotmail.com