When the people of the future look back at our time, there will be much wringing of hands at the West’s failure to stop the slaughter in Syria. Liberal writers will bewail our “guilt” and “shame” (bewailing is what we liberals are best at, after all). Readers will pat themselves on the back and say that they would never have behaved as we behaved; just as we look back on World War II and imagine we would never have collaborated if the Nazis had invaded.
Look at what the generation of the 2010s ignored as they admired their iPhones and took their selfies, they will say in shocked voices.
As of this year, the Syrian civil war had lasted longer than World War I. Hundreds of thousands had died and 11 million had been driven from their homes — 4 million of them as refugees to foreign lands.
On the one side is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, chief capo in a hereditary tyranny. He joined former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in becoming one of only two leaders to have used chemical weapons against civilians since the end of World War II.
In 2013, US President Barack Obama, the leader of the free world, no less, boomed: “What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?”
He then looked the other way. As did the British Labour Party, which joined with the Tory right in defeating British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to punish al-Assad.
On the other side is the Islamic State. If you want a comparison to shame you, consider that at least 700 religious fanatics have left the UK to rape, murder and enslave in Syria at a time when the British government was pulling every trick it could think of to stop Syrians fleeing rape, murder and enslavement finding asylum here.
Here is a taste of the condemnations we can expect from the future. Western leaders interpreted the “silence” about the massacres in Syria “as an indicator of public indifference.” They reasoned that they “would incur no costs” if they did nothing, but “face steep risks if they intervened.” For all their cries of “never again,” they accepted genocide and pretended it had nothing to do with them.
Except those quotes are from the past, not the future. They come from Samantha Power’s A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, a bleak account, published in 2003, of how, from the Turkish massacre of the Armenians to Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the unwritten rule of the US Department of State was that the US should look the other way.
I was hugely impressed by her breadth of scholarship, how she showed that it was always unpopular to state clearly that Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Kurds, Bosniaks and Tutsis were victims of the greatest of crimes; how there were always authoritative voices warning us against “overreaction” and insisting that the situation was more complicated than it seemed.
Those who blew the whistle lost their jobs, but in their determination to speak out, they proved the truth of George Bernard Shaw’s maxim: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Obama was impressed too. He made Power the US’ ambassador to the UN, where together they became reasonable — depressingly, shamefully, criminally reasonable — and stood by as the Syrian massacres escalated.
For understandable reasons, a half-truth became established during the presidency of George W. Bush: The US was the main source of conflict on the planet. If it stepped back and refused to intervene, the “root cause” of violence would vanish. Obama and Powers have tested that theory to destruction.
They have shown that, when the West does not intervene, other powers do. Russia and Iran have ruthlessly pursued their national interest in keeping al-Assad in power: Iran because it wants a client Shiite state; Russia because it wants to keep its Mediterranean base and show the world that no one messes with President Vladmir Putin.
No one in the West, or, rather, no one but the reckless, wanted an invasion of Syria. They wanted no-fly zones and safe havens. A few realized that the Kurds had as much right to a state as the Palestinians and wanted Western support for a Kurdistan, not least because the Kurds were doing most of the fighting against the Islamic State.
They have got nothing. The Kurds are now being attacked by NATO ally Turkey. Safe havens remain a fantasy. And while Western air forces are bombing Islamic State fighters in a desultory war that seems to be doing no good at all, they allow al-Assad to drop barrel bombs on Syrian civilians. Although Cameron has behaved more honorably than Labour and has clearly agonized over the Syrian crisis, his agonies have not extended to providing the money that the UK’s dilapidated armed forces would need to intervene.
Before power made her “reasonable,” Samantha Power knew why: Western electorates do not care. The mood in the UK in particular is now isolationist: anti-immigrant, anti-intervention, anti any measure that does not put “our own people first.”
I see no sign that the flood of refugees fleeing into Europe is changing minds. Liberals rightly criticize Cameron for not allowing enough into Britain, but hardly any have shown that they have the smallest inclination to tackle the “root cause” of their flight.
Now Western governments hint that they are about to commit the final treason. They will either drop their demands that the butcher al-Assad must go or, more probably, quietly accept that he is a man they must do business with.
There is an old argument between supporters of an ethical and of a “realist” foreign policy, but it does not arise on this occasion. The Sunni people of Syria will not turn on the Islamic State so they can suffer again at the hands of a man responsible for gassing their families. The Islamic State will be able to say — with justice — that the West wants to turn you over to Shiite, Hezbollah and Iranian militias. It will be able to say, again with truth, that the West is now the de facto ally of an Iran that wants to encircle and oppress you.
Sometimes, the ethical is also realistic: dealing with al-Assad is never going to work.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers