The UN has adopted a resolution to securely dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons after Russia and the US reached an apparent agreement. This has been hailed as a victory for international diplomacy. It isn’t. It is merely just another move in the poker game that is Syria, or rather, the Middle East.
At first glance it does appear that the initiative presented by Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, for the international community to supervise the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons stores is just that. However, it is also a deeper counterstroke against America. This becomes clearer once we consider the various sides of the conflict.
On ground level the rebels, made up of various groups of which only some work together, are fighting the forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad (this is obviously a very simplified perspective but serves to illustrate the point). On the global stage Assad’s allies are Iran, crippled by international sanctions, and Russia. America and much of the west support the rebels.
It is clear from the aggressive line America is taking that it wants to intervene militarily. This can be seen in its constant threats, as well as its history of involvement in the region. A stable, pro-western Middle East, is America’s ideal status quo- just look at their friendship with Saudi Arabia. Russia, on the other hand is doing everything it can to prevent the US from direct action. So when America adopted chemical weapons use as its latest basis for intervention, Russia called its bluff.
Amid the ensuing diplomacy America has looked entirely committed to the plan to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, and it would be foolish to argue that it isn’t. America wants the humanitarian crisis in Syria to end, it just disagrees with Russia on how to do it. Don’t be surprised when, in a few weeks or months, another factor arises that demands military involvement.
It would be too far to say that the Cold War never ended, but neither side has forgotten the rules of the game.
CC image courtesy of DFID, Flickr.
Ed Hernandez
October 5, 2013
The Soviet Union’s sphere of influence was enormous compared to Russia’s today. Putin is doing well to maintain the sphere he has retained closer to the homeland. I don’t think I would like to play poker with Russia and the US can’t keep up their poker face — too rash and prone to violence since its love of technology in weaponry is the mainstay of its economy.
Mike.R
October 5, 2013
Indeed. He’s had to prioritise where he wants to exert his influence, and his involvement in Syria shows how shrewdly he has chosen. The US might not have such a bad poker strategy though, especially with the reports of underhand Saudi involvement in the chemical weapons strike.
Matt Finucane
October 6, 2013
Not to mention their allies, the Saudis, directly trying to unhinge Russia’s position in Syria by financial enticements (oil) and then threats of terrorism on their Winter Olympics venues. Choose between the Telegraph or Pravda as a source; one’s probably more reliable, but the other’s a lot more fun to read.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html)
(http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/30-09-2013/125768-come_the_day_come_the_hour-1/)
Mike.R
October 6, 2013
I was pretty surprised by that article (I went for the Telegraph one). Not used to such aggressive threats from the Saudis. I also think both things that were said: the oil bribe and the threat, are unlikely to happen. The bribe won’t come to much because Saudi Arabia’s regional position/influence is built on its relationship with the US, and any deal with Russia will not likely go down well in the White House. The threat of terrorist action, again, would be a big move against a big power, Seems a little bit unlikely if I’m honest.