Nobody expected this turning after the joint press conference of the Foreign
Secretary of Great Britain William Hague and US Secretary of State John Kerry the
past 9th of September 2013 in London. As it appears while answering
to a journalist question about which options did the government of Syria have,
to avoid the confrontation, Kerry said that if all chemical weapons were handed
over to international control, and eventually destroyed, an attack may be
reconsidered. As it seems Kerry never thought that such an idea could become
the springing board for the Russian Foreign Secretary Serguei Lavrov, to make
this very offer to his Syrian counterpart Wallid Mouallem. He also added to the
demand the need of subscribing the international Convention about Chemical Weapons
Prohibition. Only a few hours later the Syrian government acceded fully to it,
to the surprise of some of the current players, still looking how to promote an
intervention in the country. As Ban Ki-Moon openly acknowledged the Russian
plan, that in fact will need a great amount of effort of the UN, as a key
player, suddenly the US State Department said first that the demand was being
said in a rhetorical way by the US Secretary. Then Obama himself took himself
some time for this subject in one of his numerous interviews given that same
day on US television, that this same offer was “potentially positive”, but
needed to be absolutely authentic.
In any case what does seem self-evident is that far from reaching a
general consensus over the intervention in his last international tour through
Western Europe, John Kerry, with or without the intention, gave the magic words
to avoid it, giving way to a political solution. As it seemed there was none in
the opinion of the Obama administration. The fact that Russia took over the
argument, could weaken the argument of the inevitability of the intervention.
The relative concession that Obama had to give to the proposal is only degraded
by this powerful doubt, that anything coming from the Syrian Government isn´t
trustworthy. Furthermore the new events should not interfere with the upcoming quest
for the bill in the Congress concerning the limited intervention in Syria, to
be duly approved by enough Congressmen. This battle is the beginning of the war
the president is looking for, and having dropped the appearance neutrality this could
only go through a tough marketing of the war, which isn´t a normal one, just a
limited one, they say in the Hill.
While the general ambiance in Washington is mainly around the Syrian issue
and as the next session in the Congress scheduled for this Wednesday, this has
been postponed again, only making the happening of the event more uncertain and
less immediate than expected. And again the French government has shown their
likeliness to follow the US path to war, still doesn´t see yet the positive
signs for doing this openly. Nor the British Prime Minister Cameron, after the
big blow of the Parliament, having lost in his seek for a bill to be passed,
allowing military intervention in Syria. Due to this limitation, he should be
out of the club of this new potential Coalition of the willing, still under the
Bush II administration.
If Bashar was to show any collaboration in this new political draft, his
position would improve by far, as he will be having a whole new UN presence
working for the recollection of all Syrian chemical arsenal as a shield
preventing any hits from the sea. As for the starting consideration, that
bombing military infrastructure, specially containing Chemical Weapons, is far
from being helpful in order to insure the safeguard and control of those. If
Damascus allows the complete destruction of the existing material an important
argument would have been neutralized by Bashar Al-Assad, until the results of
the other UN team in Rotterdam, Netherlands gives finally its results of the
analysis of the alleged chemical attack of the past 21 August in the outskirts
of Damascus. These should either way give a reason to resolve the enigma around
the authorship and accountability that some countries have determined in
advance, as being the government forces of Assad. Despite the proven responsibility
of the rebels in the other alleged chemical attacks of Aleppo in march 2013 showed the link to the rebel forces, still
doesn´t dismantle in the eyes of the logical and self-evident impossibility of
the oppositional forces to handle these kind of devices.
Once the premise should be granted by the Syrians, it would be quite
difficult for Obama to promote his limited
war, as the main objectives would have been destroyed beforehand. Then
again in the midst of harsh political times for the president, when critics
inside are growing on the left of the Democrats as of the extreme right of the
Republicans, it seems quite obvious his approach to take over international
leadership. This will eventually require the back up of a certain majority in
both chambers, nevertheless it looks as if even his own party is not really
willing to go into another conflict, and not getting very much convinced of the
arguments given to the Congressmen and Representatives. As a matter of fact his
first front line seems to be inside the US, wining the approval for his
military quest. Then would come the real thing, if until then, any surprise
effect will be second to none. Even more, if there weren´t any chemical weapons
to hunt, isn´t this getting an obsession of the hawk side of Obama, who after
giving his smoothest side, even getting the Peace Nobel Price, now shows us his
Rambo side of his government.
The true leadership of the new coalition might fall apart if the evil
Syrian were to be disarming for true. The statements on this of the Obama
himself, were that his offensive approach was the only way of getting a
consensus for a political solution. Once again war is just an extension of politics to the governing
class. If this had been his original inclination, why then doesn´t he aborts
his quest for the forsaken bill for intervention against any international law?
Still all of his statements show a poker face of someone who in the past had
shown people the new hope, the new leadership of the US. To the deception of
many his real intention are by far quite similar to the ones of his predecessor,
only the skin colour does make a certain difference to the eye.
Finally if the planned attack was to occur, as soon as possible, the
latter conclusion would be that this new humanitarian interventionism isn´t open
to any autonomous and proactive enemies. They obey to an image, a mold of the
evil, but never give in to anything, as they are tyrants. Still this particular
tyrant shows quite a resistance, and is close to put the Us strategy at stake
with its own arguments. If the US are naturally world players, used to these
games, then how can someone understand how they are having such a hard time to actually
persuade even their closest partners to join them. Or are they running out of
arguments by now?