US and Russia’s Political Dealings in Syria
In the latest developments, Syria has publicly stated its intention to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it seems that the threat of war has been removed to a certain extent. In addition, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, has welcomed the agreement reached between Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, about Syria’s chemical weapons. Barack Obama and the heads of the European countries have also expressed their satisfaction with this agreement. However, the Pentagon has announced that, despite the agreement reached between the US and Russia, US forces will remain on standby to carry out any potential military measure against Syria. Iranian Diplomacy spoke with Dr. Bahram Amirahmadian, an expert on international affairs, about Syria’s membership in the NPT and the roles of Russia, the US, and the Arab countries in the recent developments.
The US and Russia have proposed a new plan for Syria. What are the details of this plan?
Several important points must be mentioned in this regard:
They have convinced Syria to admit to having chemical weapons. On the other hand, Syria’s attempt to join the NPT has reduced the possibility of threats which might have been created following the downfall or resignation of Bashar Assad and in case of the access of government forces or the opposition to these weapons. Based on the agreement which was made, these weapons must be handed over to the UN and, with the supervision of this organization, they should ultimately be destroyed.
It seems that the international community has gained these positive points in this agreement and must have naturally given some concessions to Russia. What has been proposed is rooted in the issue that Russia has always emphasized that the Syrian government has not used these weapons. This approach means that Syria’s chemical weapons are under the control of Russia and its military personnel who reside in this country. On this basis, in exchange for the concessions which are given to the international community and will lead to the reduction of the costs for the world powers in attacking Syria, it is requested that Bashar Assad not be tried as a war criminal, because, based on the existing definition, he can be introduced as such.
On the other hand, it must also be mentioned that saving Bashar Assad from trial is not easily accepted by the international community for it is not only the US which pursues this matter, but also institutions which are affiliated with the UN, human rights, and Amnesty International follow this matter. Furthermore, Syrian citizens who have suffered will undoubtedly look to regain what they have lost. If there are 100 people who follow the cases of 100,000 who lost their lives in the clashes, they will certainly follow their legal case against the government of Syria. Therefore, the guarantee of the US and Russia on the issue of Assad not going to trial will not be sufficient because this matter will be pursued in other legal institutions.
The US has stated that if Syria violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will not wait for UN permission to attack Syria. How would you assess this US view after its doubts and speculations and ultimately its decision to refrain from attacking Syria?
In preparing to attack Syria, John Kerry explicitly stated in a speech that the US would not attack Syria on the condition that Syria delivers its chemical weapons to the international community to be destroyed. Russia took advantage of Kerry’s initiative and the foreign ministry of this country proposed this issue due to its close relations with Syria and Russia finally received credit for this initiative. Since Russia has intended to play a role in the international community, it has used this opportunity and its influence on Syria to bring the Syrians to the negotiating table and forced Walid Muallem to admit to having chemical weapons and to agree to deliver them to the international community. Thus, it seems that the US insists on the idea that if this initiative does not succeed and if they only intend to buy time, the military attack will take place. The reason is that the US had initially talked about a one week delay, then 15 days and now it has given them about a month. It must be noted that this process will be lengthy and the transfer of these weapons is very sensitive and costly, for it is possible that in the middle of the path to destruction, an attack would be launched by the terrorists which would make the crisis more complicated. Therefore, the US’ one-week ultimatum is in practice in violation of those negotiations and it seems that the US still intends to attack Syria.
Therefore, any lack of seriousness will lead to disaster. This means that if some officials of the Syrian government intend to create problems for the government of Syria, they would disrupt this plan and give the US an excuse to launch an attack. Hence, it seems that the best way is for them to determine an ultimatum as soon as possible and for the government of Syria to commit itself to the timetable in order to prevent this disaster. Otherwise, the US is waiting to launch its military attack which will ultimately create chaos for the whole region.
France has reached an agreement with three Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan, to continue their support of the Syrian opposition. Can it be said that there are now differences between these countries and the US over the issue of attacking Syria or, in other words, are these three Arab countries disappointed about the US decision to not attack Syria?
France and the Arab countries and the US can act in parallel or alone. The impossible assumption is that if the US attacks Syria and weakens the military power of this government, then they should ultimately find a replacement for the government. That replacement must not be from the radical and al-Qaeda forces, because that would be to everyone’s disadvantage, particularly the neighboring countries which somehow supported the moderate opposition. That is why the other front intends to find a substitute force which is not among the radical groups and is at the same time committed to international commitments while the Syrian government fulfills its commitment to disarm itself from chemical weapons and while this government is weakened. Furthermore, the arms which the opposition has hitherto had have been light arms and from now on the opposition needs to gain access to strategic weapons to balance the power. That is why France and some of these Arab countries had planned to send military assistance to the Syrian opposition, but they had not announced the timing. Right now, the time has come for them to act so that they can play a role in the developments with regard to the balance of power in Syria and prevent the expected disaster.
Like in Egypt where the US did not intervene and Saudi Arabia single-handedly supported Morsi’s opposition?
No. The issues of Egypt and Syria are very different. The reason is that Morsi’s opposition was backed by the army but in Syria the army is on the side of the government or, in other words, it is an ideological army. In Egypt, there was no ideological structure for the army and in the end it supported the people with the power that it held. This is while the situation is different in Syria because the opposition which stands against the government is armed, meaning there is civil war. But there was no war in Egypt. The opposition was present but no arms were used because the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood is completely different. On this basis, the type of Saudi intervention will also be different. Saudi Arabia sends military forces to Bahrain, it sends 6 billion dollars to Egypt and in Syria it dispatches arms for the opposition, all of which are aimed at safeguarding its interests.
The Kuwaiti Emir has met with Obama. How would you assess this meeting and negotiation with regard to the developments in the Middle East and the Syrian crisis?
If we intend to assess the situation of the region, Kuwait is a good area because it is considered as the heart of the military bases in the Persian Gulf. It is natural that these countries have close relations. Furthermore, military power does not exist to prevent possible attacks by countries like Syria. On this basis, we saw in the Persian Gulf War that what terminated Kuwait’s occupation was not the Kuwaiti forces but rather the American forces which had acted to remove the occupiers. The government of Kuwait is an ally of the US and is willing to maintain this relation in any form under these conditions. Both Qatar and Bahrain have declared their readiness to establish US bases inside their countries.