Lesson on Syria

The government of Guyana has commended the Barack Obama administration for rethinking its strategy on Syria by accepting the opening provided by Russia for a peaceful denouement on the issue of chemical weapons, which United Nations (UN) investigators confirmed were used on August 21.
The U. S., Britain and France claimed the report proved conclusively that Bashar al- Assad’s forces were responsible, but this was disputed by Russia within the UN Security Council. The rebels could also have deployed the weapons to garner U. S. involvement.
Last Saturday, the security council began drafting a resolution on the Russian-brokered deal that would satisfy all parties. The U. S.-British-French draft calls for Syria to declare the size and location of its chemical weapons within a week, to be verified by UN inspectors who will arrive in November and for the removal and destruction of the arsenal by mid-2014.
Unfortunately, the draft also allows the U. S. to go ahead with strikes against targets in Syria if the resolution is not complied with. It is certain that Russia and China will veto such a clause and the timing of the vote for the resolution is still in the air.
But the entire episode has highlighted the need for leaders, whether in the international or national spheres, not to draw lines in the sand without first ensuring they have the support of the constituencies on which they depend to give them support. In this instance, Obama literally announced last year he was drawing a “red line” that would be crossed if chemical weapons were used in Syria.
When it appeared that such weapons were used last August, he announced and made preparations for direct intervention in the Syrian conflict. However, he later was forced by widespread domestic and international public sentiments, opposed to U. S. intervention, to find a way out of his self defined “red line”.
After his strongest ally British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in parliament on August 30 for supporting strikes, the following day Obama announced he would be seeking congressional support. Last week, however, he abruptly cancelled this vote as public pressure continued to mount and announced over the weekend that he was willing to go along with the Russian proposal.
In the eyes of many observers, this simply proved the long held opinion that Obama was very indecisive yet prone to committing himself to courses of action which he subsequently had to abandon. This was seen earlier, for instance, on the “war on terror” in Afghanistan, which is still dragging on five years after Obama declared U. S. troops would be completely removed.
His immediate past Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta said bluntly, “When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word.” Inevitably such individuals are perceived as “weak and vacillating” even by their supporters.
In the Syrian case, there are widespread doubts that UN inspectors would be able to verify and remove all chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war. It is still possible that Obama might push the U. S. into taking action against Syria in the future and he has himself reserved his option.
But the Syrian manoeuvre is only a tactic in the larger U. S. strategic plan to defang Iran of its nuclear programme, because that poses a threat to Israel, which is the U. S. ally.
Israel, not so incidentally, in what is the worst kept secret in the international arena, has long acquired nuclear weapons. Obama recently revealed that he has exchanged diplomatic notes with the newly-elected President of Iran Hassan Rouhani.
Applying the lesson on the dangers of peremptorily drawing lines in the sand, it would be wise for the Leader of the Opposition David Granger to find exit routes from his line in the sand of Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee as the crime wave escalates.