Guest article: Was it an intervention – describe it?

Do you remember "Tsar" - that famous strategy from our childhood, in which the European race faced off with its fearsome stone giants, the Arab race with its magicians who struck down opponents with a rain of fire, and the Asian race with its agile horse samurai? If I had enough funds, I would create a new version in which the conflict in Syria would be played out using modern means.

Lyubomir Martinov

In the role of the Europeans, I imagine the United States, which accuses the Arabs (Syria) of using chemical weapons against their subjects and wants to punish them for it. On the other side stands another European race – Russia, which guards the king of the Arabs, Bashar Assad, like the apple of its eye, has placed a crown on his head and is happy to watch him reign. On the other hand, the Asian race (China) is the country with the greatest interest in resolving the conflict, since its energy security is directly related to stability in the Middle East.

As the US and its allies prepare for a possible military strike against Syria, China is watching indifferently, although its stakes are much higher than those of Western countries. The Middle East is China's largest source of crude oil. Without it, the world's second-largest economy could suddenly stop functioning. In the first seven months of the year, China imported about 83 million tons of crude oil from the region, which accounts for half of all imported oil in the country, with major suppliers being Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Oman and the UAE. According to a number of analysts, despite China's rapid progress in military technology, the Chinese People's Liberation Army is inexperienced and therefore the best solution for the country would be to find a way to diversify its energy sources, instead of a military presence in the Middle East to ensure energy security.

Latin America, a bastion of socialism, has come together as a fist and strongly condemned the desire of the United States and its European allies to launch an armed intervention in Syria – of course only in words. A military intervention in Syria would constitute a clear violation of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter and international law and would increase the dangers to international security and peace, sang in chorus in three voices Evo Morales, Rafael Correa and Raul Castro.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, known for his pathetic paranoia, has given birth to his latest pearl (not much different from the old ones). Chavez's successor announced that the authorities in the country have uncovered a diabolical plot to assassinate him after the West attacks Syria. Apparently, he is also a supporter of the theory that small conflicts are being staged in the world (in this case, the Syrian one) to divert public attention from important events such as the alleged plot to assassinate Maduro. I hope he took notes from the doyen of surviving assassination attempts - Fidel Castro, who a few weeks ago celebrated his 87th birthday in complete discretion and solitude in his house in the west of Havana. The negativity of Latin American countries towards the United States is proof of how far-sighted Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and President James Munro were back in the 19th century. to launch the foreign policy line known as the Monroe Doctrine, to control political events and commercial expansion in this region.

Egypt has also tried to bite the American hand that feeds the large Egyptian army - the interim government that came to power after the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi has said that it will respond with force if military intervention is undertaken in Syria. But this African country currently has much more important domestic problems to solve than to seek expression on the foreign policy stage. The coup d'état of July 3, which came after mass demonstrations against the rule of the first democratically elected president - the Islamist Mohamed Morsi, led to counter-protests - this time by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. The army forcibly dispersed the demonstrators who had gathered at two protest camps in Cairo, in which at least 500 people were killed.

There is also no consensus in Europe on whether or not to take military action against Damascus. France, which vehemently condemned the war in Iraq, is now pushing for a swift response to the Assad regime. Poland, by contrast, is deeply rooted in NATO and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, earning itself a reputation as a good ally that keeps its commitments. Donald Tusk’s centre-right government, which has shown all the socialists who are screaming against austerity how they really work, achieved growth of one-fifth in 2011 compared to 2009 and this year has set a defence budget of $9.5 billion, 7 per cent more than last year. This brings Poland closer to the two per cent of gross domestic product target that all NATO members are supposed to meet, but very few do. Poland will invest $43 billion in defence spending. US dollars for military equipment over the next 10 years, to replace outdated military equipment, much of which is from the Soviet era. I cite all these numbers to show the sharp turn in the country's defense policy - Poland believes that NATO should abandon military operations in countries that do not pose an immediate threat to the security of member states and concentrate on collective defense in accordance with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

In Germany, the mood is pre-election and Merkel is unlikely to allow herself the luxury of launching her country into such an adventure, which would meet fierce resistance from Germans and would melt her comfortable lead over her Social Democrat opponent, Peer Steinbrück. Merkel is also aware of the dire consequences for Europe if the largest economy falls into the hands of the two left-wing parties in the country. In addition to this, we should add Germany's traditionally pacifist behavior, fueled by painful topics such as militant National Socialism and the Holocaust. Therefore, there is little chance that Germany will support an international military coalition against Syria, especially without a green light from the UN Security Council.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is an outspoken advocate of the theory that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians near Damascus on August 21. That is why he ended the recess of the deputies and convened an extraordinary parliament, mobilizing all his forces to convince the people's representatives of the need to act with military means against Syria. Apparently, they learned a lesson from the war in Iraq, which began precisely because of suspicions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and subsequently none were found, they voted against military intervention, and Cameron met opposition even among his own party members.

If the US were to launch military action in Syria that would involve not only launching cruise missiles at military targets and government buildings but also using aircraft and ground troops, which is unlikely, it would violate its policy of strategic rebalancing in Asia. This foreign policy line, initiated after Obama came to power, involves withdrawing US armed forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrating them in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterweight to China's growing ambitions for military and economic influence in the South China Sea region.

It is an undeniable fact that after the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, the country has been heading towards destabilization, violence between Shiites and Sunnis has reached new heights, and bomb attacks there are daily occurrences. This also raises concerns about the future of Syria. There, for over 40 years, the ruling caste has been that of the Alawites, a branch of Shiite Islam, which represents only 13% of the country's population. Sunnis in Syria are 74% of the population, mainly Arabs and Kurds. An inevitable consequence of the fall of Bashar Assad will be the desire of Sunni Islamist organizations such as the Al-Nusra Front to take revenge on the Alawite sect for the atrocities to which the authorities in Damascus have subjected them. There is a separate issue with the Syrian Kurds, who are fighting both against Assad and against the opposition. They claim to create an autonomous region modeled after Iraqi Kurdistan, where they can develop independently of the central government.

A trilateral US-French-Turkish coalition could also be formed to launch a counter-strike against the Assad regime. French President Francois Hollande has been put at a huge disadvantage since the British parliament voted against carrying out punitive strikes, and US President Barack Obama has announced that he will seek approval from Congress before taking any action. Under the French constitution, Hollande is the commander-in-chief of the army and is authorized to order military intervention, only informing parliament within three days of its start. Only if the military action continues for more than four months is he required to seek parliamentary approval for its continuation.

If the US were to refrain from military action, it would undermine its credibility as a country that keeps its word and would send a signal to other hard-line political leaders that the use of chemical weapons against civilians can go unpunished. Of course, we must wait for the report of the UN inspectors to find out whether the accusations of Western countries are justified. A possible way out of this complicated situation, in which the still unformed anti-Assad coalition is gradually losing steam, is to conduct a limited, narrowly targeted operation only against military targets in Syria in order to avoid possible casualties on the part of the West – something that would ruin a number of political careers.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!