Shahid M Amin
IN a remarkable U-turn of policy on April 6, 2017, President Trump changed his stance in the Syrian civil war. The change of course was evidently prompted by the chemical attack two days earlier in rebel-controlled Idlib, by the air force of President Bashar al-Assad, in which 70 people were killed. Chemical weapons have been outlawed by International Law. The media played up the gruesome sight of babies frothing before their death. Trump decided to punish the Assad regime by launching 59 missiles from US ships in Mediterranean Sea against a Syrian air base and inflicted considerable damage. Trump said he had acted in America’s “vital national interest.†In UN Security Council debate, US Ambassador Nikki Haley (an ethnic Indian Sikh) displayed pictures of children suffering from the chemical attack to justify US retaliatory airstrikes. She said the US was ready to take further steps if needed but hoped that this would not be necessary. “The United states will not stand by when chemical weapons are used. It is in our vital national security interest to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons.†Later, a US official called the intervention as a â€one-off†intended to deter future chemical weapons attacks and not an expansion of the US role in the Syrian war. The Assad regime denied having carried out the chemical attack and claimed it had targeted a rebel military camp that had stored chemical weapons. Syria called the US airstrikes as “blatant aggression†which had made USA a partner of “terrorist groups†including the so-called Islamic State. Assad’s office called the airstrikes as “foolish and irresponsible.†Syria had been accused of using chemical weapons in 2013 when, under a Russian-brokered, UN-enforced deal, the Syrian regime was supposed to have destroyed all chemical weapons in its possession. But Syria evidently managed to conceal some such weapons. Iran, the main ally of Assad, was very critical of the US airstrike. President Rouhani said it would “bring only destruction and danger to the region and the globe.†An Iranian spokesman said “Iran strongly condemns any such unilateral strikes. Such measures will strengthen terrorists in Syria and will complicate the situation in Syria and the region.†A Russian spokesman called the US strikes as “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of International Law, launched under a far-fetched pretext.†He warned that the move “deals a significant blow to Russia-US relations, which are already in a deplorable shape.†The Russian military stated that it will aid Syria in bolstering its air defences. At the UN, the Russian envoy said: “We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the US. The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious.†Prime Minister Medvedev warned that the US air strikes were “one step away from clashing with Russia’s militaryâ€. Moscow announced that it had ended a pact under which US and Russia exchanged information since 2015 about airstrike operations conducted by the two sides in Syrian air war. On the other hand, many countries supported the airstrikes, including Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, Spain, Australia, Japan and EU. The US airstrikes were welcomed by some key Middle Eastern countries viz. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and UAE. China adopted a guarded position. India and Pakistan have so far maintained silence on the issue. Analysts saw the airstrikes as a change in US policy both towards Assad and Russia. So far, Trump had a conciliatory attitude towards Putin who reportedly even helped Trump during the Presidential campaign. The airstrikes are a signal to Russia, Iran and North Korea of Trump’s willingness to use force. US officials expect Russia to “rein in†the Syrian regime from further use of such weapons, and induce it to move towards a political solution. The airstrikes could be a message to Iran that the US intended to challenge its policy in Syria and elsewhere. The airstrikes in Syria would also be seen as a warning to North Korea of similar unilateral US action to hit its nuclear facilities.In any event, the airstrikes represent a reversal of Trump’s stance on Syria since 2013 when he had opposed President Obama who had drawn a “red line†for the Assad regime against the use of chemical weapons. Trump had then criticized Obama for doing so and had urged the US to stay out of Syria. Noting that many rebels were radical Jihadis, Trump had said that it was not in US national interest to support them. “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?†And yet today, he has done exactly the opposite. Since becoming President, Trump has changed stance on some other issues as well. He was all along very critical of China but his meeting on April 8 with Chinese President Xi Jinping went off very well and he was all praises for the latter. Trump has given up on ending Obamacare, which he had opposed with great vehemence. He is saying little about building the wall with Mexico, a key plank of his Presidential campaign. All of this is not altogether surprising. After becoming President, he has to adopt more responsible positions. On Syria, Defence Secretary Gen. Mattis and National Security Adviser Gen. McMaster, both Iraq veterans, are influencing him. Trump also met leaders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, who were very critical of Obama who failed to keep his promise to take action against Assad though he had crossed the red line on chemical weapons. The latest airstrikes have restored US credibility with its traditional Arab allies. This is Trump’s biggest military decision since taking office. The Assad regime comes from a heretical sect that has ruled the 70 percent Sunni majority of Syria by brute force. It survives due to outright Iranian and Russian military support.
Pakistani policy-makers are following a policy of neutrality in Syria. But they need to remember the old maxim that those who try to sit on two stools often fall in between. In a bid to balance relations with Iran, despite its close ties with India, Pakistan could be losing ground in Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, USA and Turkey, where its stakes are far higher than in Iran.
Trending
- PTA strengthens Digital Gender Inclusion by partnering with PAGE & Inclusion Lab
- Social activist Farrukh Khan Khokhar arrives UK on a short visit
- Drive against self-created VIP Culture in AJK as State Police moves to vanish artificially – affixed black sheeted window pans of all sorts of vehicles:
- Food Minister Bilal Yasin launches the Special “Meat Safety Task Force” in PFA
- All AJK Inter-varsity Speech Competition urges UNO to ensure grant of RoSD to Kashmiris, stringent action against India for Aug. 5, 2019 unlawful action:
- NA Speaker underlines need to enhance political, cultural, economic, and people-to-people contact between Pakistan and Portugal
- PES demands allocation of funds for private educational institutions in the annual budget
- CEC AJK Justice (R) Abdul Rasheed Salharia calls on President Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry