US Aid for Syria: Smart Power Is Taking Hold of the White House
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 1 March 2013
by Thomas Snégaroff (link to original)
(France) on 1 March 2013
by Thomas Snégaroff (link to original)
Translated from
by Grace Norman.
Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
New U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed this Thursday that the U.S. will increase its support to those opposing Bashar al-Assad. Will we soon see the final hours of the Syrian leader? Not only that, says Thomas Snégaroff, director of research at IRIS and U.S. international relations specialist.
The announcement that the U.S. is readying itself to provide support worth $60 million to Syrian rebels should not be exaggerated for the two following reasons.
Humanitarian and Organizational Aid
Firstly, American aid already exists. Since the start of the civil war, the U.S. has given $650 million to those Syrians opposed to Bashar al-Assad. The difference between the aid previously mentioned and that which they preparing to give now is that the previous aid was allocated to humanitarian organizations, whereas now it is the Free Syrian Army, the official opposition, who will benefit from it.
Next, this support is non-military. It is "non-lethal," as new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry specified during the last day of his European tour. Washington does not envisage — or in any case, not immediately — armed support. Only humanitarian and organizational manna is intended for the moment. Americans remain extremely worried about the Islamist presence among the fighters of the Free Syrian Army. According to their state department, the group al-Nusra, which is highly involved in the insurrection, is linked to al-Qaida.
To what purpose? Firstly, so as to provide aid to the population; next, to structure the opposition. By acting in this way, the U.S. wants to give the opposition legitimacy. The Americans are not betting on militarization of the conflict to overturn al-Assad, but instead on the arrival of instructors who will be informants about the identity of the main forces in the Syrian opposition.
A Means of Not Offending Russia or China
The U.S. understands well that in this conflict the intention was to tread softly but confidently. Knowing the suicidal logic in which Bashar Al-Assad has imprisoned himself, a military solution would lead directly to chaos. So, by acting in this way, John Kerry and Barack Obama deal a double blow. The American president remains loyal to his will that America will no longer be a country at war and has no intention of letting it be. In the end, the U.S. is avoiding a negative reaction from Russia, knowing that it is rumored that Vladimir Putin could himself decide to put pressure on the Syrian dictator.
This creates a new geopolitical horizon in the Middle East and is also a symbol of "smart power," a term coined by Hillary Clinton, which the U.S. wants to exercise in foreign affairs.*
Why is this increase coming now? The U.S. has had to manage its exit from Afghanistan. Then the year 2012, the year of congressional and presidential elections, froze all decision-making in terms of foreign policy. What is more, the chaos that followed the intervention in Libya caused the American administration to become more cautious. The administration must also take into account the support provided to the Libyan regime by China and Russia, two powers that the U.S. wants to manage carefully.
Finally, add to this the fact that investments in Syria have not been successful, and we can understand why there is a need to be cautious. On the humanitarian front, aid had worked, but as for the diplomatic front, for a country that wants to be done with the Shiite arc — despite attempts at rapprochement with Iran — it was a failure.
With Kerry, American Diplomacy Is Standing up Straight
John Kerry, precisely. The successor to Hillary Clinton is beginning his course very strongly. A proclaimed “europhile,” he has dedicated his first tour to Europe, which had been the poor parent during Clinton's years as U.S. secretary of state. While his predecessor had insisted on geo-economics, he seems to have begun with geo-strategic initiatives.
This is perhaps a new era that is opening itself up to the U.S. It is not that it is abandoning geo-economics — quite the opposite. Kerry's tour was to ensure this, as there was also a question of moving forward toward an agreement of Euro-American free trade. But symbolically this trip is very interesting; it signifies that U.S. foreign affairs are once again standing on both feet.
Geopolitics, a little neglected on the altar of geo-economics during Obama’s first term — despite the promises of Cairo — seems to be able to re-establish its place, now that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is a reality. Moreover, Obama's second administration seems to have decided to act in favor of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as to intervention in Syria, even if only by paying lip service and making an indirect beginning.
It is especially interesting that this new donation comes at the same moment that France has taken its new place of support and partnership in the American strategy. France's action in Mali is ideal for the U.S., who shares the burden as the police of the world. But in the case of Syria, American aid is also a sign that the U.S. has understood that they are not the only ones who can change the game in conflict. There, America cannot put into practice its new "lead from behind" doctrine. If it were France, Germany or another Western country, military intervention would be excluded.
Americans should be extremely careful in Syria. They seem to have learned from past mistakes, and that in itself is quite new…
*Editor’s Note: Hillary Clinton did not coin the term “smart power,” though she often used it. It is generally attributed to Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.
The announcement that the U.S. is readying itself to provide support worth $60 million to Syrian rebels should not be exaggerated for the two following reasons.
Humanitarian and Organizational Aid
Firstly, American aid already exists. Since the start of the civil war, the U.S. has given $650 million to those Syrians opposed to Bashar al-Assad. The difference between the aid previously mentioned and that which they preparing to give now is that the previous aid was allocated to humanitarian organizations, whereas now it is the Free Syrian Army, the official opposition, who will benefit from it.
Next, this support is non-military. It is "non-lethal," as new U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry specified during the last day of his European tour. Washington does not envisage — or in any case, not immediately — armed support. Only humanitarian and organizational manna is intended for the moment. Americans remain extremely worried about the Islamist presence among the fighters of the Free Syrian Army. According to their state department, the group al-Nusra, which is highly involved in the insurrection, is linked to al-Qaida.
To what purpose? Firstly, so as to provide aid to the population; next, to structure the opposition. By acting in this way, the U.S. wants to give the opposition legitimacy. The Americans are not betting on militarization of the conflict to overturn al-Assad, but instead on the arrival of instructors who will be informants about the identity of the main forces in the Syrian opposition.
A Means of Not Offending Russia or China
The U.S. understands well that in this conflict the intention was to tread softly but confidently. Knowing the suicidal logic in which Bashar Al-Assad has imprisoned himself, a military solution would lead directly to chaos. So, by acting in this way, John Kerry and Barack Obama deal a double blow. The American president remains loyal to his will that America will no longer be a country at war and has no intention of letting it be. In the end, the U.S. is avoiding a negative reaction from Russia, knowing that it is rumored that Vladimir Putin could himself decide to put pressure on the Syrian dictator.
This creates a new geopolitical horizon in the Middle East and is also a symbol of "smart power," a term coined by Hillary Clinton, which the U.S. wants to exercise in foreign affairs.*
Why is this increase coming now? The U.S. has had to manage its exit from Afghanistan. Then the year 2012, the year of congressional and presidential elections, froze all decision-making in terms of foreign policy. What is more, the chaos that followed the intervention in Libya caused the American administration to become more cautious. The administration must also take into account the support provided to the Libyan regime by China and Russia, two powers that the U.S. wants to manage carefully.
Finally, add to this the fact that investments in Syria have not been successful, and we can understand why there is a need to be cautious. On the humanitarian front, aid had worked, but as for the diplomatic front, for a country that wants to be done with the Shiite arc — despite attempts at rapprochement with Iran — it was a failure.
With Kerry, American Diplomacy Is Standing up Straight
John Kerry, precisely. The successor to Hillary Clinton is beginning his course very strongly. A proclaimed “europhile,” he has dedicated his first tour to Europe, which had been the poor parent during Clinton's years as U.S. secretary of state. While his predecessor had insisted on geo-economics, he seems to have begun with geo-strategic initiatives.
This is perhaps a new era that is opening itself up to the U.S. It is not that it is abandoning geo-economics — quite the opposite. Kerry's tour was to ensure this, as there was also a question of moving forward toward an agreement of Euro-American free trade. But symbolically this trip is very interesting; it signifies that U.S. foreign affairs are once again standing on both feet.
Geopolitics, a little neglected on the altar of geo-economics during Obama’s first term — despite the promises of Cairo — seems to be able to re-establish its place, now that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is a reality. Moreover, Obama's second administration seems to have decided to act in favor of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as to intervention in Syria, even if only by paying lip service and making an indirect beginning.
It is especially interesting that this new donation comes at the same moment that France has taken its new place of support and partnership in the American strategy. France's action in Mali is ideal for the U.S., who shares the burden as the police of the world. But in the case of Syria, American aid is also a sign that the U.S. has understood that they are not the only ones who can change the game in conflict. There, America cannot put into practice its new "lead from behind" doctrine. If it were France, Germany or another Western country, military intervention would be excluded.
Americans should be extremely careful in Syria. They seem to have learned from past mistakes, and that in itself is quite new…
*Editor’s Note: Hillary Clinton did not coin the term “smart power,” though she often used it. It is generally attributed to Joseph Nye, former assistant secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.