I suppose it is fitting that it is early February, because I find the ever-escalating Syria kerfuffle so irritatingly repetitive that it is rather like the old Bill Murray movie Groundhogs Day. (Although I note CNN hasn't the good grace to play Sonny and Cher between segments.) How long must we suffer through an endless parade of Middle East woes? When is it one tinpot dictator too many for the dictates of conscience to decide?
I admit to pining for the days before we spoke fluidly about Sunni's and Shiites, fundamental Islam and Fatwas. Before Iraq went south, Afghanistan went nowhere, and Iran went nuclear. Alas, just as I was lamenting the dictator fatigue presented by Bashar Assad's ghastly reminder of the perilousness of anything so bold as civilization, I went dumpster diving through the archives of my parent's basement.
There I found a yellowed newspaper--actually newspapers--which my 11 year old self had obviously kept to commemorate the Gulf War; it was dated January 14, 1991. It wasn't the paper with the six inch letters spelling war, but one of the lead-up issues as the world was drawn into the inevitable. I was struck by an article discussing none other than Syria. There was some question whether then "president" Hafez Assad would back his Ba'ath party counterpart in Iraq-- Saddam Hussein-- or join the rest of the Arab and Western world in resisting Saddam's push into Kuwait. The short article lacked substance, but it got me to thinking: what is Syria's deal?
It seemed interesting to me that Syria backed the worldwide consensus then and is the ire of international will now. From there I wondered like others about the surprising steel in the back of the Arab League--not exactly a poster child of democracy and liberalism. What about Russia's willingness to incur the undiplomatic wrath of everyone from France to Qatar?
And then I remembered the old saw that nations have no friends, but only interests.
Syria is ruled by leaders from an obscure religious sect most closely affiliated with Shi'a Islam despite its overwhelmingly Sunni population. It has a patron and steadfast ally in the Shi'a regime in Iran. Iraq, having fought Iran to a stalemate by the late 1980's was the natural enemy of Iran and Iran's allies in the early 1990's. Syria then could masquerade as a friend to the civilized world whilst helping to bash the kneecaps of an enemy of its friend.
Meanwhile, the striking Arab uniformity against Syria is likewise based in geo-politics in that a friend of a nearly nuclear Iran is a decided foe of the frightened and fissile-less. The Arabs have nothing but upside to a weakened Iran, and taking Syria out of the mullahs' sphere of influence is a dramatic improvement to their interests. If they manage to align with the West and international will, how handy.
An aside on Russia need only point out that Vladamir Putin's audacious attempts to reclaim the presidency of that country have been met with suprisingly persisent howls. Any surprise at his willingness through his stooges Dmitri Medvedev and Sergei Lavrov to stand athwart the world community are misplaced. Indeed with his vodka soaked countrymen standing up against him, his only hope in the Russian tradition is to prove that the country is under seige by Western whatever. Syria proves a timely and worthwhile distractions from the nettlesome trouble of fixed elections at home.
So Syria rode surreptitiously on the backs of civilization in the early 1990s to help an ally and the Arab League today is pulling a similar move to weaken an enemy. There comes a time when we must wonder who is meddling is who's affairs. Is the West and the United States in particular guilty of interferring in the Middle East, or has the Middle East become adroit at playing the world for its fool?
No comments:
Post a Comment