Is
There A Kerry-Lavrov Understanding, Faltering But Steady?
Saeed
Naqvi
Right wing opinion in the US
with Think Tanks like Brookings in the Vanguard is now firm: Shia-Sunni
conflict will define West Asian politics in the foreseeable future. The way the
dice is loaded at the moment, the West sees its interests served best in
alliance with the Sunnis. There is an unstated acceptance of Sunni terrorism as
an asset.
At a recent seminar in New
Delhi, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State with President Bill Clinton,
minced no words: Moscow will be made to pay by Sunni Muslims in Russia’s
backyard for what Putin is doing in Syria.
The implication is that Russian
intervention in Syria is decisively helping President Bashar al Assad to remain
in power. In the altered vocabulary in West Asia, Assad is not a Baathist but
an Alawite leader and Alawites are a variety of Shia who are mortal enemies of
Sunnis.
What Talbott is implying is
this: for the reverses being heaped on them, the Sunnis are going to take
revenge on Russia. Muslim populations across the Caucasus would plague Putin
with masterstrokes of terrorism.
When ex Saudi Intelligence
Chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan turned up at the Kremlin on July 31, 2013, his
conversation with Putin contained just the sort of threat Strobe Talbott’s response
exuded. If only Putin would give him Assad’s head on a platter, Bandar would
give him the moon. Sochi Winter Olympics would pass without a terrorist
incident. Bandar claimed considerable control on terrorist groups in the
region.
Americans are miffed that all
their efforts at regime change in Damascus atleast since August 2011 have been in
vain. How many times ex Secretary of State and now Democratic front runner,
Hillary Clinton, imperiously waved her hand: “Get out of the way Assad.”
Well, Assad is still in the
Damascus Presidential Palace, exactly as this column had predicted in September
2011. The argument was straightforward. The US had occupied Iraq in April 2003.
It had dismantled the Baath Party structure, the army, Presidential guards, the
mukhabirat (intelligence), stayed in Iraq for over a decade and then left
without any identifiable war aims achieved.
Yes, the Shias in the south
oppressed, by Saddam Hussain, were thrilled. Naturally they co-operated – but
only upto a point. So moved was Thomas Friedman of the New York Times that he
recommended Ayatullah Sistani for the Nobel Peace Prize.
If the Iraqi melodrama now in
its twelfth year, has not yet concluded to American advantage, how would Assad,
controlling a power structure which is the mirror image of Baghdad, be
dislodged by mere cross border terrorism, armed and supported by regional
powers and their western patrons but who have, in the midst of battle, been at
cross purposes.
Eversince the Russians entered
Syria everybody’s bluff is being called. The most embarrassed of the lot has
been US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter. Militants being trained by US
officers, surrendered their weapons to heaven knows who and sought safe
passage.
Carter had to sheepishly announce
to the media that a secret $500 million training programme in Syria has been
abandoned. Other, unreported projects in Syria are apparently in similar
disrepair. In a Congressional hearing, Senator John McCain asked Carter: “what
evidence do you have that the IS was being defeated.” A flustered Defence
Secretary said: “Momentum was being built against the IS.”
Meanwhile, Carter’s counterpart in
the State Department has proceeded deftly in a terrain full of mines. Unadvertised,
the Kerry-Lavrov duet had since their May 12 joint announcement worked towards
a political settlement in Damascus. Like good diplomats they proceeded with a
script which could be given a suitable spin in Washington as well as in Moscow.
Lavrov could say that Assad will
be required in the interim but the future of Syria will be determined by the
Syrian people. Kerry meanwhile could cope with Saudi Arabia’s tantrums by
saying that Assad’s future was in the balance. In essence Lavrov’s and Kerry’s
formulations do not contradict each other.
Under this over all understanding,
a ceasefire has been declared in Yemen. Saudis and the Houthis are talking.
The long standing impasse on
naming the Lebanese President has been broken. Suleiman Frangieh could well be
the consensus candidate.
The US signal to regional players
to form an Arab army to fight the IS has prompted the Saudis to scramble and announce
an army without soldiers. Various countries, including Pakistan, in the Saudi
list have denied they were ever consulted.
Why this Saudi impatience to
announce an Arab army without any prior consultations? What is the Saudi anxiety?
The answer may lie in a counter question: which is the battle ready Arab army
with an incentive to destroy the IS? The Syrian army, ofcourse.
# # # #
No comments:
Post a Comment