What’s the game?

A. Rahman
Published : 27 June 2013, 03:05 PM
Updated : 27 June 2013, 03:05 PM

For more than two years America and Russia are now engaged in, so to say, shadow boxing in Syria. No more surreptitious activities, no more proxy prodding through third parties and no more packaging of weapons through the borders to the rebels or even to the regime. It is going to be a bare knuckle fight, a head on collision – Syria's war game seems to be heading towards the real thing!

The outrage of the long drawn out civil war in Syria can be judged by the seriousness with which the recent G8 summit in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland had taken up the matter. The whole of the first day, and even days before the first day, had been devoted to the Syrian civil war, although G8 summit was supposed to be the gathering of world's largest economies to discuss world's economic situations. America with the active support of Britain and France wanted to steamroll Russia into agreeing to a UN resolution to support and give material aid to the rebels albeit on humanitarian grounds. But the ulterior motive of the West was to cripple the Syrian regime (not to mention about the regime change) and let the rebels take over the power of the state, as they had done in Libya. But Russia would have none of this – as it is said, once bitten twice shy. Russia proclaimed to be on the side of peaceful resolution of this war situation without radicalisation or fragmentation of Syria.

Why is Syria so important to both America (the only superpower at present) and Russia (the de-facto superpower)? For America, Syria could offer the golden opportunity to realise its grand ambition for not only on Syria but also on the whole of Middle East with the connivance of the Zionist forces in Israel and America. America has an exceedingly successful model to effect a change of regime in an independent sovereign country without getting too involved in a messy foreign war – as in Libya – but having the full benefit of the spoil. No more troops sending to a foreign land, no more body bags to bring home, no more congressional debates for more funds on defence spending – it is going to be a plain sailing, let enemies kill enemies. After the bruising experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libyan model is, so to say, a God sent one.

Russian perspective is, on the other hand, somewhat different. Russia is no longer a superpower it once was and hence it has to limit its ambitions. It has its own problems at home – recession, endemic corruption, law and order situation and, of course, Chechnian problem. Moreover, Russia as a world power is likely to be eclipsed by other powers in the near future unless it strives hard to maintain its economic and military status quo. With all these problems, it is hard to imagine that Russia will embark on new military adventures.

However, Syria is historically closely associated with Russia and so Russia does not want to see Syria dismantle and create further problems. Moreover, President Bashar al-Assad and his clan coming from the Alawite tribe (of Shia sect) are traditionally left leaning. The Alawites are moderate and almost secular in their religious outlook. This can be judged from the fact the Sunnis, Shias and other Muslim sects as well as Christians and even Jews had been living in Syria peacefully without religious strife.

Syria's president Bashar al-Assad said last week in an interview with a German newspaper that Europe will pay a heavy price if it offers arms to the rebels. This is in response to the British Foreign Secretary, Willian Hague's bellicose statement a day before the start of G8 summit on 17 June that the murderous Assad regime cannot be allowed to continue and then President Barack Obama's announcement on previous Thursday that America would be supplying military aid to rebels fighting to overthrow his regime. President Assad's statement, although superficially may seem supporting self-interests, has serious insight and implications.

Syria and its surrounding areas are the birthplaces of all monotheistic religions and consequently all the tantrums of religions undercurrents exist in these lands even today. But in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon the religious adherents had been living side by side for generations in relative harmony. But when some political or economic or religious interests stoke up sectarian emotions, conflicts emerge. Iraq is a supreme example — all religious sects were living under Saddam Hussein in relative harmony – but when in the pretext of removing religious fundamentalists and terrorists from Iraq (which there were none in Iraq) West invaded Iraq, these terrorists emerged and congregated from abroad. Thus Western invasion only helped the al-Qaeda and the Taliban as their recruiting agent.

The West, led by America, also claimed that there was no democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and so forth and they needed to be taught how to set up and run democratic systems. The question is: whose democratic system is so good and suitable for Middle Eastern states? Didn't George W Bush come to power through the back of pregnant ballot papers in Florida (when recounted under the court order) which produced additional Republic support when ballot boxes were kept under the supervision of his brother, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, thereby allowing George W Bush to win presidency?  Is the British parliamentary democratic system developed over hundreds of years suitable for Middle East with no democratic tradition or democratic institutions in place?

In Syria the fire of religious hatred, not so much between Muslims and Christians, but between the sects of Islam – Shias and Sunnis – had recently been stoked up and allowed to rage violently, partly by foreign powers and partly by the so-called Arab Spring. It was not at all difficult as President Assad comes from the Alawite sect which is part of the Shia group. The Shias constitute only a very small fraction, only 13% of the population; whereas the Sunnis constitute about 74% of the population; Christians being 10%.

The Sunnis in Syria have grievances that they don't form the government despite constituting nearly three quarters of the population. When the wind of Arab Spring reached the country, the Sunnis grabbed it. Of course, there were external supports from Sunni regimes in the Middle East. The ragtag, ill-disciplined rebels joined together and formed what they called themselves 'Free Syrian Army (FSA)'. But very soon they were infiltrated and taken over by al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, as these Jihadists felt able to leave Afghan and Iraqi fronts due to conflict being subsided in those areas.

The rebels or the FSA are now dominated and led by Jihadists fighting Syrian regime. Between 60 and 70 per cent of rebels are now Jihadists. This is the context in which President Bashar al-Assad said that Europe will come to regret giving material support for the rebels. Now the question is, does not American intelligence agency, CIA or the British or European spies know that the FSA is now under the control of the Jihadists and giving arms or assistance to them is the direct help to terrorists whom the West is fighting? It is highly incredible that these agencies are ignorant of this fact?

So why the West is going ahead with their plan of arming rebels, knowing very well that their arms will go straight into the hands of Jihadists? American military help to Afghan Mujahideen during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan eventually went to hunt down the Americans and other European soldiers. So why are they doing it? The answer lies in the grand strategy of the West seeking casus belli.

When Saddam Hussein contemplated attacking Iran, America encouraged him to do so. After seven years of war, he had nothing to show for it except that his country's economy was in tatters. Again when he contemplated invading Kuwait, America nodded in silent support. The consequence of these misadventures is the life of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of the country of Iraq. For America it was a win-win situation; one country's loss is obviously another country's gain.

Now the mantle of Saddam Hussein has been passed over to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Material support in the form of finance, arms and ammunition are all flowing relentlessly to the FSA (or Jihadists) from these countries. After Barack Obama's pronouncement, the flow of arms is going to go in even bigger streams. Surely, these countries are not doing it on their own without the active support and encouragement from their masters.

If and when things will go up in smoke in the Middle East, the blame game will start. As usual, the little guys will get the blame, they will be the scapegoats. In the world of power games, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are midgets. How could these small upstarts create such a mighty mess disrupting the flow of world's most vital commodity – oil – and threaten the world economy? What befell Saddam Hussein may await the fate of the leaders of these countries.

In the game between superpowers, it is a game of equals. But in the game between a superpower and petite powers, it is a game of cat and mouse. As we all know, cat does not kill the mouse in one go. It plays with the mouse, pretends to let it go and then slaps it down until the mouse becomes so weak that it just cannot move and then it is killed. Saddam Hussein may have been once the play boy of the Middle East, but he ended up being dragged out of the hole in the ground to meet his destiny.

—————————–
A. Rahman is a Nuclear Safety Specialist.