Emotion has been overtaking diplomacy these past few weeks internationally. This is why the time has come for pausing and reflecting, after US President Barack Obama seized the opportunity Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to him.
Starting with Syria, a point was made by the Free Syrian Army Commander General Salim Idriss, after the Russians brokered a deal with US Secretary of State John Kerry: “It seems this chemical weapons issue was all about Israel’s security. It really is not about making the Syrian people any safer.” He is right. In the region, the cornerstone US behaviour is “America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security”, as Obama put it in March 2013. Everything should be analysed through the prism of the ‘unbreakable bond’ between the US and Israel. The rest is fantasy. Kerry may go on claiming that “Palestinian right to self-determination must be recognised” or Obama may resume talks with Iran, but it will change nothing. Especially, given Obama’s views about America’s “eternal ties” with Israel.
As for Syria, additional stress by America and European leaders on the military risks the Syrian regime would run if it did not comply with its commitment to destroy its chemical weapons (the so-called ‘robust resolution’ from the United Nations), is just another way of saving face. Firstly, destroying the chemical weapons within six months is a joke. Besides, Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov has already declared that “threatening to punish Syria showed lack of understanding of the agreement” and consequently, will oppose any move of that kind at the UN. A compromise wording will be found at the UN, e.g. the need for a second resolution before striking, as Obama will not again take the risk of threatening to set the region ablaze.
“Syria must not go unpunished on the issue of chemical weapons” is a kind of argument which makes a distinction between using fragmented bombs, burying people alive, cutting their bodies into pieces ... and chemical weapons. After the death of more than 100,000 Syrians, it stops short of convincing anybody that it is a deciding point when the settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute is, for instance, heading towards a new phase.
At this point, the concerns of some of America’s friends, who rightly wonder whether Russia has now eclipsed the US on the world stage, seem worth raising. Yet, there is little to expect from comments about some GCC members being ‘fed-up’ with US support for Israel, the ‘re-balancing of the US towards Asia’ or establishing ‘growing contacts with Russia’. History shows us that none of the past ‘disputes’ (former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s foreign policy, 9/11 or the Iraq war) ever resulted in any open breach of the strategic partnership. As one observer said: “The Saudis have nowhere else to go.”
One should, on the contrary, come back to the fundamental conflict in the region — the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which everybody talked about these past few weeks on the occasion of the signing of the Oslo agreement, 20 years ago. Many observers noted how much the Palestinians had lost as a result of that venture: A deep Palestinian divide; the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist, but Israel threatening anyone supporting the Palestinian move for statehood at the UN with retaliation; a doubling of illegal colonies with another 3,000 new colonies just approved; a continuation of violence in the Occupied Territories; prisoners being held in jail for years without following the due process of law; Palestinian finances being withheld; Palestinian land stolen; the wall of shame and the check-points continue to exist. To say that “Palestinians should not have signed such an agreement” is an after thought. On the contrary, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was right to have shown the world from which side the genuine moves for peace were emanating.
That said, the future is rather bleak. There is no apparent willingness from Israel to negotiate seriously in the new round that has just started. There is no balanced support from the US — see Kerry’s requests to the European Union to “suspend” recent guidelines about not financing anymore Israeli institutions working in Occupied Territories (and remember what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did when Obama asked him to freeze new colony construction, two years ago). Europe will go re-building what the Israeli army destroys. As for the Arab world, history speaks for itself. Actually, the key issue is the Israeli contradiction in postponing the ‘two-state’ solution — “West Bank [colonies] are now an irreversible reality” and maintaining one single ‘Jewish’ state with ‘second-class’ citizens, Israeli colonist Dani Dayan said in the Guardian on August 6. Also, the fight for supremacy between Iran (and its Shiite allies) and Saudi Arabia (and its Sunni allies) is not that deep a divide that it should come before efforts towards a vital Israeli-Palestinian solution.
One would like Americans, Europeans, Russians and Arabs to start looking at more serious issues than ‘punishing Bashar Al Assad’ whatever the crimes he — and the others — are responsible for. As French author Georges Bernanos wrote 50 years ago, “there is no such lie as an ill-poised issue”.
Luc Debieuvre is a French essayist and a lecturer at IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques) and the FACO Law University of Paris.