US President Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal of US forces from Syria has met with near-universal condemnation by Democrats and Republicans alike. That says less about Trump than it does about the US’ foreign policy establishment’s blinkered vision.
The mainstream of both political parties exhibits certain reflexive judgements: that the US must maintain a troop presence all over the world to prevent adversaries from filling a vacuum; that US military might holds the key to foreign-policy success; and that the US’ adversaries are implacable foes impervious to diplomacy.
Trump’s withdrawal from Syria could indeed be a dangerous prelude to an expanded regional war; yet, with imagination and diplomacy, the withdrawal could be a critical step on the path to an elusive peace in region.
Illustration: Yusha
The US’ foreign policy establishment had rhetorically justified the US’ presence in Syria as part of the war on the Islamic State (IS) group. With the IS essentially defeated and dispersed, Trump called the establishment’s bluff. Yet suddenly, the establishment declared the actual reasons for the extended US presence.
Trump’s move would hand geopolitical advantages to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while imperiling Israel, betraying the Kurds and causing other ills that are essentially unrelated to the IS, Trump’s critics said.
This shift had the benefit of unmasking the US’ real purposes in the Middle East, which are not so obscure, after all, even though mainstream pundits, US establishment strategists and members of the US Congress tend not to mention them in polite company.
The US has not been in Syria — or Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, Libya and elsewhere in the region — because of the IS. In fact, the group was more a consequence than a cause of the US’ presence. The real purposes have been US regional hegemony; and the real consequences have been disastrous.
The truth about the US presence in Syria has rarely been told, but one can be sure that Washington has had no scruples about democracy in Syria or elsewhere in the region, as its warm embrace of Saudi Arabia amply demonstrates.
The US decided to promote an insurgency to overthrow al-Assad in 2011 not because the US and allies like Saudi Arabia longed for Syrian democracy, but because they decided that al-Assad was a hindrance to the US’ regional interests. Al-Assad’s sins were clear: He allied with Russia and he received support from Iran.
For these reasons, former US president Barack Obama and former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that “al-Assad must go.”
The US and its regional partners, including Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, decided to provide arms, logistics, training, and sanctuary — notably in Jordan and Turkey — for a rebellion against al-Assad.
Obama signed a presidential finding, Operation Timber Sycamore, calling on the CIA to work with Saudi Arabia, the paymasters, to overthrow al-Assad. Obama, seeking to avoid strong US public opposition to yet another CIA-led war with US troops on the ground, chose to back jihadists instead.
Yet the purpose of the Syrian operation was clear: install a Syrian regime friendly to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, deny Russia an ally and push Iranian forces out of Syria. It all seemed so obvious to the US, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
However, as usual for CIA regime-change operations, it failed miserably. Russia called the US’ bluff and backed al-Assad, while Iran provided vital support as well. In the meantime, the proxy war stoked by the US and its allies led to more than 500,000 deaths of combatants and civilians, and the displacement of more than 10 million Syrians to date, as well as a major refugee crisis in Europe that continues to rock the politics of the EU.
Then, one faction of ruthless Muslim militants split from another to create the IS. Following shocking videos of beheadings of American and other captives, Obama decided to intervene in 2014 with air attacks and some US troops to support a Kurdish-led attack on IS strongholds.
From Trump’s point of view, a US-installed Syrian puppet regime that would push out Russia and Iran is neither central to the US’ national security nor practicable. Here, Trump is right for a change.
There is no doubt that the US’ unilateral withdrawal could create an even bigger disaster. Turkey could invade northern Syria to crush Kurdish forces; Russia and Turkey could find themselves in a dangerous faceoff. Israel could launch a war against Iranian forces in Syria. Israel and Saudi Arabia have already formed a tacit alliance against Iran. The Syrian war could expand to a full-fledged Middle East war. This is all terrifyingly plausible.
Yet it is not inevitable — far from it. Successful diplomacy is possible, if the US foreign policy establishment would for once recognize that UN-based diplomacy, rather than war, might be the prudent path. Under the auspices of the UN Security Council — with the core assent of the US, China, Russia, France and the UK — six steps could be agreed to establish a wider peace, not create a wider war.
First, all foreign forces would leave Syria — including the US, Saudi-backed militants, Turkish-backed forces, Russian troops and Iran-backed forces. Second, the security council would back the Syrian government’s sovereignty over all of the country. Third, the council, and perhaps UN peacekeepers, would guarantee the Kurds’ safety. Fourth, Turkey would commit to not invading Syria. Fifth, the US would drop its extraterritorial sanctions on Iran. Sixth, the UN would raise funding for Syrian reconstruction.
Iran might well trade an exit from Syria for an end to US extraterritorial sanctions; the US and Israel might accept the end of Iranian sanctions in exchange for Iran’s military withdrawal from Syria; Turkey might agree to restraint if the council is clear that there will be no separatist Kurdistan; and Russia and Iran might agree to withdraw from Syria, as long as the al-Assad government is backed by the UN and Iranian sanctions are removed.
The US’ extraterritorial sanctions on Iran are indeed hurting the Iranian economy, but they are also dividing the US from the rest of the world and failing to shift internal Iranian politics. Trump could agree to lift them in exchange for a withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria.
There is an even bigger picture. The key to Middle East peace is for Turks, Iranians, Arabs and Jews to coexist. The biggest obstacle since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I has been big-power meddling by Britain, France, Russia and the US at different points.
It is time to let the region sort out its own affairs, without the illusion that foreign powers can enable one contestant or another to avoid compromises and without the massive weaponry pouring in from abroad. Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example, are under the illusion that the US will save the day against Iran without the need for any compromise.
After 100 years of Western imperial meddling, it is time for compromise and peaceful accommodation by the region’s actors under the umbrella of the UN and international law.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and professor of health policy and management at Columbia University, and director of its Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy and, most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with