The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s “murderous regime” in Syria this week was celebrated with Churchillian bombast by British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Lammy in the British House of Commons.
“The Lion of Damascus” was now “the rat of Damascus, fleeing to Moscow with its tail between its legs,” he said.
“Assad is a dictator,” Lammy thundered. “He is a criminal. He used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. He has the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.”
The ghosts of British imperialists past looked down on the foreign secretary approvingly — yet the UK had played no part in the downfall of the dictator.
In 2013, it might have been a different story. At that time, Lammy voted against bombing al-Assad’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, in line with Labour policy dictated by former leader Ed Miliband, now his colleague as British secretary of state for energy and climate change.
When Tory party rebels joined the opposition, then-British prime minister David Cameron’s government was left powerless to intervene. The vote was a turning point. Within days, then-US president Barack Obama had seized on British paralysis as an excuse not to enforce his own “red line” against al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Two years later, Lammy also voted against bombing the Islamic State’s terror network in Syria, although on that occasion Labour lost.
Today the foreign secretary rejoices and another colleague, British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting, opened old wounds on television by criticizing Miliband’s conduct.
Lammy’s confusion is hardly unique — although it did not help his credibility that he wrongly declared Syria and Libya to be geographical neighbors — and his earlier stance had some logic. Punishing al-Assad without inadvertently aiding the Islamist faction among his opponents was always going to be tricky. Previous Western military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya had been botched.
However, in microcosm, Syria revealed that Western foreign policy had lost its way. A blend of democratic idealism with hard-headed realpolitik was required to meet a series of complex post-Cold War challenges, but our best and brightest leaders were just not up to the job.
After former US president George W. Bush and his Iraq war sidekick, former British prime minister Tony Blair, gave way to Obama, Cameron and Angela Merkel as chancellor of Germany, the transatlantic foreign policy establishment rejoiced that the grownups were back in charge. Although Cameron soon revealed that he flew by the seat of his pants — the Anglo-French intervention in Libya in 2011, the Syria vote and the Brexit referendum were sketchily improvised — liberal Obama and Merkel appeared to be more weighty figures.
However, there is a fine line between careful deliberation and chronic indecision, and Obama and Merkel crossed it. Today, the West is paying the price.
Watching Obama dithering over Syria, Putin moved in smartly to become al-Assad’s protector in partnership with Iran’s ayatollahs. The Russian Navy and Air Force won access to bases on the Mediterranean in return for military aid as Washington looked on impotently.
In the same period, on a visit to Obama’s White House, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) disavowed any intention to build artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend his country’s maritime reach, but on his return to Beijing, he broke his promise and yet faced no sanction from the US administration. Thus encouraged, Xi became increasingly vocal in his claims on Taiwan.
Merkel’s tenure looks even more feeble in retrospect. The chancellor had more meetings with Putin than any other Western leader, but it did not do her much good.
Brought up in Soviet-dominated East Germany, Merkel spoke fluent Russian (and Putin, as a former KGB spy based in Dresden, could reply in German). She also knew how vicious Putin could be from first-hand experience — he deliberately let his large black labrador Koni off the leash at one of their summits, knowing her fear of dogs.
Although she ran rings around most democratic politicians, Merkel never seems to have got the measure of this dictator or any others.
The chancellor’s temporizing proved fatal. She neither supported Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership, but nor would she veto it outright. At the Bucharest summit in 2008, her compromise formula that Ukraine should become a NATO member at some unspecified date offered that unfortunate country no security and it gave Putin a huge incentive to invade before Ukraine could come under the Western umbrella.
After his interventions in Moldova and Georgia, Putin’s intentions were transparent. The Russian leader was notably frank with Merkel:
“You won’t be chancellor forever, and then they’ll [the Ukrainians] become NATO members. And I’m going to prevent that,” he said.
She appears not to have got the message.
In her new memoir, Freedom, the former chancellor praises former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s because it allegedly gave Britain time to rearm.
That did not work out so well, surely?
At least Chamberlain rearmed. After Putin seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, there was no increase in German preparedness for war, no change of strategy. Despite the urging of the US, the UK, Poland and the Baltic States, German defense spending amounted to a pitiful 1.3 percent of its GDP in 2021, before the Russians came back to gobble up the rest of Ukraine.
In the meantime, Merkel doubled down on Germany’s energy dependency on Russian gas and shut down her country’s nuclear power plants.
The liberal internationalists have failed, so now it is the turn of the exponents of a rougher school of foreign policy. Israel’s astonishingly successful military campaign against Hezbollah, the catspaw of Iran, appears to have been the deciding factor in al-Assad’s fall. Western leaders sometimes decry Israel’s means, but for the moment they appear to have achieved their ends.
Soon, US president-elect Donald Trump will be back in the White House, too. Trump showed little appetite for military adventures in his first term and his approach to foreign policy was purely transactional. Perhaps he will succeed where the liberal internationalists failed, but realpolitik divorced from morality has its pitfalls too. If proof is needed, just look at the wreckage of Putin’s great power ambitions in Syria.
Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS