Arab Spring and return of the cold war

[kamalet]

When the UN passed a resolution to "protect the people of Libya from their own government" many expected that the chaos in Libya would be brought down through disabling the Gadaffi forces from killing its own people. However as well know, the actions of the west morphed into providing arms to the rebels as well as providing them cover to fight the Gadaffi forces. Ultimately, the aims of a regime change appear to have been achieved.

I previously wrote here about the plight of the Syrian people who I believed were suffering on account of the actions of the West in Libya.

Yesterday, after many weeks of preparation by the EU and the Arab League (and obvious support of the US) a resolution on Syria was vetoed by Russia and China. Reasons and excuses have been peddled why the Russians and the Chinese vetoed the resolution, but one thing is clear, the activities in Libya played a big part especially when the current resolution had a hint of requesting regime change in Syria.

The problem now is that Assad can butcher his people at will unless he is shepherded by the Russians and the Chinese to go easy on the killing. I will not even be surprised surprised if the recently found chumminess between the Russians and the Chinese extends to resolutions on Iran!

Bottom line is that the west breached certain trust that people had when the case of Libya came to the UN. Gadaffi did not do justice to his people, but perhaps a process of a democratic regime change would have earned them the honours!

[omundu]

Sema Bwana Kamale.

The facts may go deeper than what you portend for Russia and China vetoing any UNSC resolutions. I came across an article that suggests why military intervention may be harder in Syria as opposed to what transpired in Libya;

www.policymic.com/articles/2348/nato-intervention-will-harm-syria-and-region

That said, i cant help but wonder why both Russia and China also vetoed a humanitarian (in my opinion) resolution condemning Syria's Government's human rights violations ?

They also vetoed any other draft resolution put forward despite countless assurances that the draft resolution contains no provision for military action. The Russians and China then state that the problem in Syria can only be solved through dialogue although Al Thani (Arab league) noted that the Syrian Government failed to accept the leagues plan of action to end the bloodshed. What to do then ?

Could the fact that Russia is a big trader in military arms with Syria (they just delivered military jets worth $500 million to Syria the other day) and the presence of Russia's strategic naval base there, also be a key factor in the stalemates we are witnessing?

[kamalet]

Omundu

I agree that trade and security are an important facet of the Russian stance. But also it is important that we look at the motivation of the Chinese to join the Russians in the double veto. It may just be a development of us vs them.

As for the Arab League, the suggestion that Assad cedes power was perhaps what cost them the regional initiative.

[nowayhaha]

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Tuesday, sending a clear message that Russia intends to stand by its strongest ally in the Middle East amid an international outcry over the country's response to a civil revolt.

Lavrov and foreign intelligence chief Mikhail Fradkov were given a royal welcome by thousands of pro-Assad supporters, who rallied in the streets waving Russian flags in thanks to Russia's veto over the weekend of a UN resolution calling for tough sanctions on the Syrian regime. Syrian state television declared that 1 million people came out to greet Lavrov.

"Efforts to stop violence have to be met with dialogue by all the political forces," Lavrov said after the meeting, Interfax reported. "Today we received confirmation of the readiness of the president of Syria for this work."

The visit by Russia's most senior diplomat came as several countries — including the United States and Britain — pulled their ambassadors out of Damascus and pressure mounted on Assad over a bloody crackdown on an armed insurrection against his authoritarian rule.

"Today was a disappointing one for all those who aspire to build a new kind of relationship between the United States and Russia. Great powers have great responsibilities," U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote on his Facebook page. " Hoping for new progress in coming hours and days before it's too late in Syria."

Syria's opposition had earlier turned down Moscow's offer to organize negotiations in Russia between them and government leaders.

The United Nations has reported that the violence in Syria has left at least 5,400 civilians dead. Syrian officials say 2,000 soldiers have died while fighting what they claim are foreign-backed rebels.

While Lavrov said Assad promised to open up dialogue with opposition leaders, violence continued to escalate in the country as government forces resumed the bombardment of the city of Homs, an opposition stronghold, Reuters reported.

Analysts said the presence of Russia's intelligence chief on the trip indicated that Russia will continue its military support to Syria, a major ally dating back to Soviet times.

On Saturday, Russia and China blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for increased pressure on Assad. Both Moscow and Beijing said they were worried foreign powers would use the resolution as a basis for a military intervention similar to that in Libya, where rebels — largely helped by a NATO bombing campaign — overthrew and killed Colonel Moammar Gadhafi last year.

Lavrov earlier said "regime change is not our occupation" and stated that the resolution put all the blame on the Assad government's side and none on the opposition.

"There is not one single, but many sources of violence," Lavrov said.

Lavrov's sentiments were backed by some Russian Middle East experts who believe that the struggle against Assad's secular regime could unleash radical Islamist forces in the country.

While fears over the increased radicalization of the Middle East are real, experts say Russia's main concern is to keep Syria as its only dependable ally in the Middle East.

"The loss of Syria would be catastrophic, and we should hold on to it at any price," said Igor Korotchenko, a military expert and an editor of the Natsionalnaya Oborona magazine.

He said Fradkov's presence shows that Russia is serious in defending the interests of its old ally.

"Russia can provide Assad intelligence information that foreign countries might be behind the opposition" he said.

Military expert Alexander Perenzhiyev called Syria Russia's "last frontier" in the Middle East.

"If it is lost, we will be valued as a second-class state," he said, adding that Russia might even deploy military advisers to counter the threat of foreign intervention.

His position was echoed by presidential candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party.

"Let's hope that Russia will not leave Syria alone," he said, according to Interfax. "We have to support all countries which resist the United States."

Another presidential candidate, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, said Russia should continue efforts to force dialogue between the opposition and the government.

"But the opposition should be looked at carefully to make sure who are criminals sent by the West to topple a legitimate power," he said.

Billionaire presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov said Tuesday that while he understands the criticism of Assad, he does not support the radical opposition. He said Russian business and military interests in Syria — which amount to $20 billion — should be taken into account.

Syria is among the largest buyers of Russian weapons, and contracts signed with the country amount to $3.5 billion, Vyachaslav Dzirkaln, deputy head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation said in November.

The country is also home to a small Russian naval base built during Soviet times, which functions as a Russian-only port beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of political magazine Russia in Global Affairs, told Reuters on Tuesday that Lavrov's visit was an indication to Assad that Russia did "everything possible" by vetoing the UN resolution.

"Now the main task for Lavrov is to tell Assad that if there is no visible change in Syria, then regardless of the Russian position he should be bracing for external military measures," Lukyanov said.

Read more: www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov-in-syria-to-strongly-back-assad/452593.html#ixzz1lnVIrYZL
The Moscow Times
www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lavrov-in-syria-to-strongly-back-assad/452593.html

[jakaswanga]

Kamalet,
I tend to see lots of sense in the line you are taking on this thread.

So too, our correspondents here who interviewed senior foreign ministry officials in Moscow was told. Resolution 1973 was elastically interpreted by NATO to form an umbrella for institution of NATO's economic interests in Libya. An economic coup!

The Russians will not allow it to happen again ---[unless the price is right???] this being a game of selfish interests.

The Chinese were taken aback at how their contracts with Libya were torn and rendered useless at the behest of France and the UK after Khadaffi's demise, and how 30 thousand of their citizens then working in Libya were treated by the Europeans as if they were 'Sub-Saharan Africans! [this is a hurting one to contemplate!]

Then there is the analysis that Regime change in Syria is a tenet toward the further isolation of Iran. And a game changer in the power balance in the middle east. So China and Russia are buying time to re-align their interests and diversify before Assad goes.

Few people will dispute Assad is dead meat. The argument is about the timing of serving him to the vultures.

[paulhomy]

Feb 8, 2012 20:35:06 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

Then there is the analysis that Regime change in Syria is a tenet toward the further isolation of Iran. And a game changer in the power balance in the middle east.

@ jakaswanga
I think you are spot on with this assertion, there seams to be more than meets the eye.
Both the western powers vs chino/russian alliance are playing games and Assad's downfall is beneficial in in that the power shifts to the west and the religious ideologues in Saudi Arabia.
The humanitarian aspect is just a cover for extending their influence in the region, which is a sad but a necessary evil .

What perturbs me was the swift clampdown in Bahrain over the pro-democracy supporters by Bahrain authorities with backing of Saudi forces. This just plays into the Russians and Chinese.

I assume the pleas for democracy came from the "wrong" people (shia majority) while in Syria its the sunni clamoring for democracy are the "right" people.

But in this jostle for influence and power you can smell the hypocrisy in both camps to the high end as the conflict has nothing to do with democratization of the middle east but awarding contracts to their multinationals which is sickening and curtailing the Iran's influence which I think is necessary for the stability of the region.

On other news why is Mugabe still the leading Zimbabwe?

[mugabe]

When one reads many of the replies one can sees the fact that there very little awareness about the intricacies of global politics by many people a situation that is common in Kenya.

For example it is height of simplicity to agree with the Russian assertion that what happened in Libya is the main reason they vetoed the resolution. As any keen watcher of the region will tell you regardless of Libya, Russia was never likely to acquisce to any action against what is in effect a client state in Syria. Syria has been a client state of Russia since the USSR days when it used to receive significant military largesse. In today's world Syria remains a steadfast ally of Russia, Syria buys Russian weaponry and hosts a military base for Russia. More importantly, Russia's influence over Syria is an important trump card in the Middle East process. Russia is a a member of the quartet precisely because of its influence in Syria which neither the EU, UN and the US have. The Russians are brilliant propagandists they would never bother to admit the strategic motivations that led them to Support the Syrian regime. Instead they resort to using the Libya case as an excuse when clearly Libya was virtually irrelevant in their strategic calculations. Syria is important in Russia's strategic calculations that even the Russians were willing to call Washington's bluff in terms of antagonizing the Arab world. The choice was between surrendering an influentially ally one that serves the interests of Russian prestige in the region in return for the approval of states that are allies of the US that buy weapons from the US that host US military bases. It was a simple choice for the foreign policy mandarins in Moscow.

[kamalet]

Feb 9, 2012 21:28:45 GMT 3 mugabe said:

When one reads many of the replies one can sees the fact that there very little awareness about the intricacies of global politics by many people a situation that is common in Kenya.

For example it is height of simplicity to agree with the Russian assertion that what happened in Libya is the main reason they vetoed the resolution. As any keen watcher of the region will tell you regardless of Libya, Russia was never likely to acquisce to any action against what is in effect a client state in Syria. Syria has been a client state of Russia since the USSR days when it used to receive significant military largesse. In today's world Syria remains a steadfast ally of Russia, Syria buys Russian weaponry and hosts a military base for Russia. More importantly, Russia's influence over Syria is an important trump card in the Middle East process. Russia is a a member of the quartet precisely because of its influence in Syria which neither the EU, UN and the US have. The Russians are brilliant propagandists they would never bother to admit the strategic motivations that led them to Support the Syrian regime. Instead they resort to using the Libya case as an excuse when clearly Libya was virtually irrelevant in their strategic calculations. Syria is important in Russia's strategic calculations that even the Russians were willing to call Washington's bluff in terms of antagonizing the Arab world. The choice was between surrendering an influentially ally one that serves the interests of Russian prestige in the region in return for the approval of states that are allies of the US that buy weapons from the US that host US military bases. It was a simple choice for the foreign policy mandarins in Moscow.

Mugabe

Thank you for recognising the level of ignorance on global issues by us Kenyans.

Unfortunately you do not tell us anything new about Russian interest in Syria. That does not mean that Russia has no respect for world view about violence against one's people. That was the motivation in Libya when they agreed to limited action that the west did not respect.

That is why I say that Libya was an excuse rather than the reason why the Russians vetoed the resolution.

[omundu]

My only worry is that people are losing their lives. We can only get videos on youtube posted by concerned citizens because the international press has not been allowed in. You can only imagine what we havnt seen.

I saw a clip posted yesterday on CNN where one of the, should i call him freedom fighters, was lying on a makeshift hospital bed injured and pleading for international help. He sent a message to Assad saying that they will not give up.

The Government has been shelling Homs in preparation for a ground assault. Al jazeera says that the middle class is on Assads side because they do not know what type of leader will come in if he leaves. The better the devil you know attitude that has further complicated the situation.

Blinded by the fog of politics and regional interests, the world is failling to realize that people are dying (roughly more than fifty a day in this systematic cleansing), there is a lack of food and health services. Peoples homes have been shelled and they are sleeping in the streets. All this and there is no hope in the near future because the western worlds hands are tied and they can only expel Syrias ambassadors. The only hope i see in this is if roughly 30% of the Army (apparently thats the threshold for balance) joins the rebels side.

At least some foundation has been formed that is supplying much needed food and medicine to the needy through smuggling routes from lebanon, i just dont remember the name.
I foresee a slide into civil war that may engulf not only Syria, but the entire region. After all the blood that has been spilled; Assad, Russia and China wont be able to just wish the situation away. There are case studies all over our history books.

[godmesa]

I saw the 'return of cold war' at the head of this thread, and I nearly fainted!
Arab spring, no arab spring, al-queda, and all, I think there will never be a return to the cold war in the near future. Not in the way we have all along envisioned war, as a physical duet between the 'superpowers'. These are the reasons
1. The global has become the local. Cosmopolitan world means that there is nolonger a single nation -state that can surely define itself as so. The world revolves around financial prowess of a multitrillionaires who have their headquarters strategically located in all major cities. Which means that a Russia bombing London will probably lead to destruction of 20 Russian billionaires who control both the financial sector in London and the political machinery in Moscow. Similar to any other city and any other country.
2. Politicians and businesses long went to bed together, in an incestous relationship, which means that, as seen in the current 'liberal' government of the US, people leave the corporate sector to take senior government positions, as the people in government positions alternate to take corporate jobs. In the UK, senior advisers to the Prime Minister are also same people who advise corporates in Russia, Geneva, Hong Kong, J'burg e.t.c.

Corporates love to make money, and war, is only good for them, if it brings more money. They hate the anxiety and market tremors of 'cold' wars, so it ain't gonna get back to that one.

That said, Assad is cooked. What is now happening is that, like Libya, the 'west' (Russia is included- here), as it were , are just negotiating how to share the spoils. They probably have discussed, I suspect, where he will be buried, and what they must do to ensure that his body and burial ground doesn't become a 'shrine' for those who hate the 'free world'.

[godmesa]

Dypes,
Mugabe is still leading Zimbabwe because South Africa baby sat Mugabe and shielded him from open-ended sodomisation. The west wouldn't be seen hurting mugabe openly so soon, and especially given that the history of apartheid is still raw.

The other reason, may be related to why they removed Gbagbo very fast. Gbabgo was sitting on a huge cache of Cocoa, an essential raw material for the production of chocolates. The quantity which is hoarded by multi-national corporations was getting dangerously low. And even worse, the price of chocolate was beginning to soar, and given that it is a must eat for every westerner, this was bound to raise the temperatures in already restive western populace, something which they didn't want given the austerity measures and financial uncertainity that is already biting the caucasian world. So Gbagbo had to go!

Mugabe, in retrospect, leads a country that produces white maize. Now, that is a produce that the western world has in plenty, and again, no population in the western world is ever gonna be restless because ugali prices is gone up. They don't do ugali, leave that to Africans - sub-saharan.

If Mugabe was sitting on a huge cache of say, wheat, or Cocoa, then we would by now be talking of a very raw backside, or a sombre presence at den haag.

On other news why is Mugabe still the leading Zimbabwe

[nowayhaha]

Feb 10, 2012 17:20:01 GMT 3 @godmesa said:

I saw the 'return of cold war' at the head of this thread, and I nearly fainted!
Arab spring, no arab spring, al-queda, and all, I think there will never be a return to the cold war in the near future. Not in the way we have all along envisioned war, as a physical duet between the 'superpowers'. These are the reasons
1. The global has become the local. Cosmopolitan world means that there is nolonger a single nation -state that can surely define itself as so. The world revolves around financial prowess of a multitrillionaires who have their headquarters strategically located in all major cities. Which means that a Russia bombing London will probably lead to destruction of 20 Russian billionaires who control both the financial sector in London and the political machinery in Moscow. Similar to any other city and any other country.
2. Politicians and businesses long went to bed together, in an incestous relationship, which means that, as seen in the current 'liberal' government of the US, people leave the corporate sector to take senior government positions, as the people in government positions alternate to take corporate jobs. In the UK, senior advisers to the Prime Minister are also same people who advise corporates in Russia, Geneva, Hong Kong, J'burg e.t.c.

Corporates love to make money, and war, is only good for them, if it brings more money. They hate the anxiety and market tremors of 'cold' wars, so it ain't gonna get back to that one.

That said, Assad is cooked. What is now happening is that, like Libya, the 'west' (Russia is included- here), as it were , are just negotiating how to share the spoils. They probably have discussed, I suspect, where he will be buried, and what they must do to ensure that his body and burial ground doesn't become a 'shrine' for those who hate the 'free world'.

The Cold War was so named as it never featured direct military action

"A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country."

[paulhomy]

Feb 10, 2012 18:35:25 GMT 3 @godmesa said:

Dypes,
Mugabe is still leading Zimbabwe because South Africa baby sat Mugabe and shielded him from open-ended sodomisation. The west wouldn't be seen hurting mugabe openly so soon, and especially given that the history of apartheid is still raw.

The other reason, may be related to why they removed Gbagbo very fast. Gbabgo was sitting on a huge cache of Cocoa, an essential raw material for the production of chocolates. The quantity which is hoarded by multi-national corporations was getting dangerously low. And even worse, the price of chocolate was beginning to soar, and given that it is a must eat for every westerner, this was bound to raise the temperatures in already restive western populace, something which they didn't want given the austerity measures and financial uncertainity that is already biting the caucasian world. So Gbagbo had to go!

Mugabe, in retrospect, leads a country that produces white maize. Now, that is a produce that the western world has in plenty, and again, no population in the western world is ever gonna be restless because ugali prices is gone up. They don't do ugali, leave that to Africans - sub-saharan.

If Mugabe was sitting on a huge cache of say, wheat, or Cocoa, then we would by now be talking of a very raw backside, or a sombre presence at den haag.

On other news why is Mugabe still the leading Zimbabwe

tl;dr

@godmesa
My apologies, it was a rhetoric statement with a tinge of sarcasm it needs not a response.
And just for reference here bit.ly/zaheeM

[nowayhaha]

Arab Spring revives Cold War alignment

Posted on February 18, 2012

Marwan Kabalan

For the first time since the end of the cold war two decades ago, Russia and China used the veto twice in the UN Security Council to block a resolution regarded particularly in Moscow as another western attempt to ignore its interests in the international arena. Russia’s firm position in defence of the Syrian regime is seen as a clear departure from post-Soviet Kremlin policy which until recently tried to avoid a direct clash with western powers and hence a resumption of the cold war animosity. That does not seem to be the case anymore. Although many insist that Russia would still be willing to sell its ally in Damascus if the right price is offered, Moscow’s self-confidence is indeed growing and seems to be willing more than before to challenge western policies when its interests deem that necessary. The Russian-Chinese co-ordination on many world issues, including in the UN Security Council, makes it almost certain that the West will, from now on, face tougher resistance to its polices from underprivileged powers in the international system. Indeed, over the past few years, especially after the US invasion of Iraq, Russia started to show more resistance to US hegemony particularly in the Middle East, but the Arab Spring may have provided one more incentive for Moscow to confront western policies in the region. For many, the Arab Spring may act as the trigger for a new east-west rivalry and could lead to reshaping the international system. The argument on the end of US hegemony and the emergence of a multi-polar system has been made several years ago, but gained more ground after the dramatic events of the Arab Spring. In 2006, for example, Richard Haass, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential think thank based in New York, insisted that the age of US supremacy is coming to an end. He blamed the George W. Bush administration for contributing to eroding the hegemonic position of the US, which was described as the shortest in the history of the great powers. Yet, the declining influence of the US in the Middle East and the world at large cannot be attributed only to self-created mistakes. It is a natural outcome of a dynamic international system that leans towards preventing any single state from acquiring dominant power. This has always been the case throughout history. In 19th century Europe, the balance of power system described the process whereby smaller powers tended to form temporary alliances of convenience to counterbalance the dominant military state in the system. The membership of these alliances changed over time as the different states became more powerful potential hegemons. From time to time war broke out and was used as a means to cut down the dominant state and distribute power more evenly in the system. For most of this period, statesmen and scholars thought that the balance of power was a self-regulating system and that it looked after itself. French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte discovered this equation when his attempt to dominate Europe was challenged by an alliance of middle powers and was ultimately defeated and he was forced to retreat inside France. Germany was similarly punished for attempting to control more than the other great powers would have allowed it to get. In the post-Cold War era, the absence of a countervailing power or a group of powers in the system allowed the US the opportunity to dominate world politics. Indeed, the US made several mistakes that contributed to undercutting its influence but the other powers – regional and global – while realising that war against the US was not an option, they nevertheless made sure that Washington’s policies would fail in several parts of the world. When the Arab Spring began, the anti-US powers – Russia, China, and indeed Iran – did not seem to be bothered by the removal of pro-US regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. On the contrary, Iran, for example, hailed the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and saw them as the beginning of an Islamic awakening. When it came to Libya, Russia and China, both had considerable investment in the country, opposed western policies especially when it became clear that Nato was taking the UN mandate beyond providing protection to civilians and towards removing the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Syria was perhaps the clearest case when the interests of the big regional and international powers have completely diverged. Syria has created the sort of polarisation and division in the international system that has not been seen since the end of the Cold War. Anti-US powers leaned towards forming an alliance to prevent Washington from taking advantage of the Syrian crisis and hence reassert itself as the hegemon in the Middle East. The outcome of the conflict in Syria is likely therefore to end up leading to shifts and changes not only in the region but in the global balance of power too.

www.thefrontierpost.com/2012/02/18/arab-spring-revives-cold-war-alignment/

[omundu]

Very enlightening article in the Al Monitor on the intricate organisation that is the FSA (free syrian army)
Apparently it is composed of 40 battallions loosely moddelled together with a main goal. They are each autonomous thus making it harder for Assad and his state security to dismantle.
The author goes in depth as to how the units operate and source of funding.

www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/06/the-armed-syrian-opposition-a-he.html

There have been rumours of the prescence of the British SAS in Syria, coordinating some attacks and also the ever present hands of the CIA with weapons supplies. Turkey has used the downing of the plane scenario to amass troops by its border with Syria and the PM has stated that any sign of movement from the Syrian Army towards the border will be taken as a sign of agression. www.rt.com/news/syrian-troops-target-erdogan-763/

My take on the above is that the "allied powers" are trying to milk all they can from the "plane downing situation" NATO cannot go to war with Syria just from that one incident. They are using this development to create a 'safe zone' around the border for the amalgamation of the FSA forces into a more cohesive movement. (indications are that the opposition forces are indeed becoming more organised)

The 'safe zone' will increasingly be used for smuggling of amongst others; medical supplies, armed supplies and key personnel and defectors will be more willing to defect into a region they deem safe from retaliation.

Civil war has began in Syria and current events show it may not be as easy as Assad may have thought it will. The signs indicate it is protracted and given the fact that FSA have been attacking at the heart of secure areas in Damascus and have even resorted to assasinations and kidnappings of key elements of the regime, He may have bitten off more than he can chew.

(unedited)