Russia upstages US’ best-laid plans
There are developments on the Syrian front – positive ones at that, after which it now seems quite likely that the United States’ penchant for armed intervention in another nation’s internal strife in favour of its preferred party would not take place. For one there were no takers for the US’ position amongst its usual camp followers in such adventures. The UK’s parliament put a dampener on Prime Minister David Cameroon’s keenness to follow in Barrack Obama’s wake by refusing to rubber-stamp it. The rest of the Europe too was quite sceptical of the aggressive US approach. And also back home, despite some usual hawks amongst the Republicans adopting the familiar gung-ho stance and rooting for action, the weary-of-war people at large gave it a thumb-down. More than anything else, despite a certain Salafite kingdom and another Middle Eastern sheikhdom wanting the US to pound the Syrian army with its precision bombs and guided missiles, the Russian and Chinese staying adamant against allowing a repeat of Libya stayed the American hand. The Russians for their part even raised the issue that the quite probable possibility that chemical weapons may indeed have been unleashed by the rebels to provoke international reaction against Bashar al-Assad.
The comprehensive Russian plan of divesting Syria of its chemical weapons’ arsenal and put it under international control has almost universal acknowledgment and backing – forcing the US to bring to the two-day Geneva talks on Thursday. The US officially welcomed the ‘significant’ and ‘very specific’ Russian proposal to secure the handover of Syria’s chemical weapons before the crucial talks. In the backdrop of its utter isolation and the backlash at home, the US administration was in a way painted in a corner. It thus opted to place its faith in Moscow’s influence over its Syrian ally, with the White House urging patience and said it was “increasingly confident” because its Kremlin partners had to “its credit, put its prestige on the line.” The proverbial fig leaf coming from the White House spokesman Jay Carney: “We have seen more co-operation from Russia in the last two days than we have heard in the last two years… The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant.”
After the diplomatic coup, Vladimir Putin writing in The New York Times rubbed it in: the US military intervention had the potential “increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism”. And also that Syria was not going through a battle for democracy but “an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country”. The Russians in staying true to an ally have almost eliminated any justifications for military action in Syria, the plan also affords a face-saver of sorts to the US when it seemed to be gradually but quite palpably losing clout. Above all, the uncalled for US intervention may have sparked a bigger conflagration that may have consumed the whole of this powder-keg of a region.
