President Obama Can Still Earn His Nobel Peace Prize
The media quickly labeled President Obama a loser when Russia took the initiative for the chemical disarmament of Syria. Indeed, Obama had maneuvered himself into a rather difficult position.
His most important ally, the United Kingdom, dropped out. Aside from French support, there was little international eagerness for a punitive expedition against Assad. Moreover, the congressional support for the intervention was extremely doubtful. In short, this episode in the Syrian crisis once again points out how politicians can maneuver themselves into a corner. He who says that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that can not be crossed has to intervene for the sake of his own credibility, even if that is the stupidest thing he could do at that moment.
It was therefore cynical that the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize could possibly unleash an intervention in an escalating regional conflict. But what is happening now is encouraging. It is unimportant whether the American secretary of state stated rather recklessly that Assad could prevent a punitive expedition if he would give up his chemical weapons. The fact is, that created a totally new dynamic.
Autocratic Governing Allies
The question, of course, is why Russia embraced Kerry’s suggestion so quickly. I think that the West underestimates how much Russia, like China, resents every violation of the sovereignty of a country. Moscow and Beijing do not believe that the Security Council is authorized to sanction a regime change. Furthermore, they deeply distrust Western intentions. America and its allies declared that they were not after regime change in Libya, but they did it anyway. Regime changes also took place in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The fear is inherent that America and its European allies will ultimately not recoil from intervention if things in their eyes go wrong in Chechnya, Tibet or in the autocratically governed allies of Moscow and Beijing.
The American-Russian agreement is itself the paragon of diplomatic ingenuity. In one go, the agreement ended the discussion over who is to blame. Sanctions will no longer be taken to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons. Sanctions will be taken if any party fails to meet the terms of agreement. That could be Russia’s ally Assad or the rebels supported by the West. The latter are suspected to also have chemical weapons and to have used them.
Justified Winner
The American-Russian agreement has also improved relations between both countries and now forces them to find a broad political solution for the entire conflict. For that, Iran’s support is vital, because only Iran and Russia could credibly enter conversations with Assad. That the Iranian leaders supported the Russian initiative is logical. No other country has suffered from chemical weapons in the same way as Iran during the wars with Iraq.
If the game is played wisely, America and Russia will ultimately also solve the Iranian nuclear problem. Obama will then go down in history as the deserved winner of the Nobel Prize, while the Russian position is significantly strengthened.
His most important ally, the United Kingdom, dropped out. Aside from French support, there was little international eagerness for a punitive expedition against Assad. Moreover, the congressional support for the intervention was extremely doubtful. In short, this episode in the Syrian crisis once again points out how politicians can maneuver themselves into a corner. He who says that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that can not be crossed has to intervene for the sake of his own credibility, even if that is the stupidest thing he could do at that moment.
It was therefore cynical that the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize could possibly unleash an intervention in an escalating regional conflict. But what is happening now is encouraging. It is unimportant whether the American secretary of state stated rather recklessly that Assad could prevent a punitive expedition if he would give up his chemical weapons. The fact is, that created a totally new dynamic.
Autocratic Governing Allies
The question, of course, is why Russia embraced Kerry’s suggestion so quickly. I think that the West underestimates how much Russia, like China, resents every violation of the sovereignty of a country. Moscow and Beijing do not believe that the Security Council is authorized to sanction a regime change. Furthermore, they deeply distrust Western intentions. America and its allies declared that they were not after regime change in Libya, but they did it anyway. Regime changes also took place in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The fear is inherent that America and its European allies will ultimately not recoil from intervention if things in their eyes go wrong in Chechnya, Tibet or in the autocratically governed allies of Moscow and Beijing.
The American-Russian agreement is itself the paragon of diplomatic ingenuity. In one go, the agreement ended the discussion over who is to blame. Sanctions will no longer be taken to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons. Sanctions will be taken if any party fails to meet the terms of agreement. That could be Russia’s ally Assad or the rebels supported by the West. The latter are suspected to also have chemical weapons and to have used them.
Justified Winner
The American-Russian agreement has also improved relations between both countries and now forces them to find a broad political solution for the entire conflict. For that, Iran’s support is vital, because only Iran and Russia could credibly enter conversations with Assad. That the Iranian leaders supported the Russian initiative is logical. No other country has suffered from chemical weapons in the same way as Iran during the wars with Iraq.
If the game is played wisely, America and Russia will ultimately also solve the Iranian nuclear problem. Obama will then go down in history as the deserved winner of the Nobel Prize, while the Russian position is significantly strengthened.