Syria and the Middle East: our greatest miscalculation since the rise of fascism

Bashar al-AssadThere could no more dreadful idea than to pour more armaments into sectarian war now consuming Syria. Yet that is precisely what Britain’s coalition government wants to do. The foreign secretary, William Hague, seemed on Monday to parody his hero Pitt the Younger by demanding “How long must we go on allowing … ?” and “what we want to see is”. Who is this we? But even Pitt would never be so stupid as to declare war on Syria, which is only morally sound outcome of William Hague’s rhetorical mission creep. For two years the pundits have proclaimed the lasting imminent fall of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. High on Arab spring, they declared he would fall from logic of history. Or he would fall because the western sanctions would bring him down. Or he would fall because the media, as in the novel “Scoop”, were with the rebels and had decided they would win. Assad has not fallen. Still there, locked in the lethal Muslim schism that resurfaced with the demise of the region’s secularist dictators. These have now almost all gone: the shah in Iran, Najibullah in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya. They had faults in abundance, but they succeeded in suppressing religious discord, instilling rudimentary tolerance and keeping region mostly in order. This was in the west’s interest, rulers, like those in the Gulf, were supported accordingly. Turning turtle and abetting their downfall may yet prove most disastrous miscalculation of the western diplomacy since the rise of fascism. Prior to the Iraq war, Saddam persecuted the Shias, but their shrines were safe and intermarriage was common. After the war, Sunni and Shia are torn asunder, with a death toll of ghastly proportions. A similar agony may soon be visited on the Afghans. Libya’s Tripoli is more unstable now the west has toppled Gaddafi, its fundamentalist guerrillas spreading mayhem south across Sahara to Algeria, Mali and Nigeria. These upheavals might have occurred without western intervention. Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were largely self-starting. Islamist parties often came to power, because they offered an alternative discipline to existing regimes. But the west’s sudden zest for “wars of choice”, its meddling in the politics of Pakistan and its sabre-rattling in Iran have created a cause on to which the neoconservative Islamism could fasten. Al-Qaida was in 2000 a tiny group of fanatics. But America and Britain have portrayed it as an all-powerful enemy, apparently lurking in support of every anti-secularist rebellion. Cameron calls it “an existential terrorist threat… to inflict the biggest possible amount of damage to our interests, way of life”. Yet stabbings and bombings do not constitute an “existential threat”. UK is a stronger culture than Cameron appears to believe. There is no threat to its existence, while the chief damage being done to its way of life comes from the incompetence of its government. Syria is certainly a claim on world’s humanitarian resources, to be honoured by supporting the refugee camps and aid agencies active in the area. Assad’s suppression of a revolt has been appallingly brutal, but he was Britain’s friend, as was Saddam, long after his regime began its brutality. That is how the things are in this part of the world. The west cannot stop them. To conclude “we cannot allow this to happen” assumes a potency over other people’s affairs that “we” do not possess (…..)



Acerca de ignaciocovelo
Consultor Internacional


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )


Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: