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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry