Syrian Crisis...2013

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Saudi Arabia’s Proxy Wars
By FAHAD NAZER
Published: September 20, 2013

Saudi Arabia appears resolute: It wants Bashar al-Assad out of Damascus. The Saudis view the fighting in Syria with the same intensity that they did the civil war in Yemen that raged in the 1960s — as a conflict with wide and serious repercussions that will shape the political trajectory of the Middle East for years to come.


The Syrian war presents the Saudis with a chance to hit three birds with one stone: Iran, its rival for regional dominance, Tehran’s ally Assad, and his Hezbollah supporters. But Riyadh’s policy makers are wary. They know that once fully committed, it will be difficult to disengage. And so they are taking to heart the lessons of another regional war that flared on their border 50 years ago.

The war in Yemen that broke out in 1962 when military leaders ousted the centuries-old monarchy and declared a republic quickly turned into a quagmire that sucked in foreign powers. The Soviet Union provided the new regime with air support. British airstrikes aided the royalists and the United States offered warplanes in a symbolic show of force.

More than anything else though, the conflict became a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, which backed the deposed imam and his royalist supporters, and Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who supported the new republic. Nasser’s vision of a united Arab “nation” free of Western domination and sterile monarchies resonated across the Arab world. The Saudi monarchy, wary of this republican fever on its border, decided it was not going to stand on the sidelines. The kingdom used all available means to try to check Nasser’s ambitions — but it did not send troops.

By some estimates, Egypt sent as many as 55,000 troops to Yemen, some of whom became involved in fighting well inside Saudi territory, while others were accused of using chemical weapons supplied by the Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia provided money and weapons to the royalists. Yet neither side achieved its goals. Egypt’s war with Israel in 1967 led Nasser to withdraw his forces, but the Saudis were unable to turn the tide. Riyadh was eventually forced to recognize Yemen’s republican government.

Now as then, Riyadh sees the struggle in Syria as a defining moment. As the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, it perceives an opportunity to check what it sees as Iranian plans to encircle the kingdom with hostile Shiite-dominated regimes. As the war has taken on a more sectarian character, the usually reserved foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, has described Assad’s onslaught against his own people as “genocide” and Syrian lands as being “under occupation” — a clear reference to the presence of Iranian and Hezbollah forces.

It is no secret that the Saudis are supplying elements of the Syrian opposition with weapons. They all but admitted as much when the prince said a few weeks ago that “if the international community is not willing to do anything, then they must allow Syrians to defend themselves.”

The Saudis will use all tools available to oust Assad, while taking measures to ensure that the weapons they’re supplying to the rebels do not fall into the hands of extremists. Nevertheless, following the chemical attack on civilians near Damascus last month, the Saudi foreign minister spoke candidly about the inability of the Arab nations to put a stop to Assad’s campaign through force of arms, adding that any military effort to do so would likely involve actors outside the region. Recent suggestions that the Arab League should assemble a military force to check Assad’s aggression do not seem viable. Disagreements among the league’s member nations have prevented it from agreeing to even endorse a potential U.S. strike.

But on Monday, the Saudi Council of Ministers issued a strong statement making clear that it considered preventing another chemical attack by Assad to be only a short-term goal. In the long-term, he must be ousted.

Saudi Arabia will intensify its efforts to arm the rebels and to use its media outlets and diplomatic clout to rally support for a military strike. Although the kingdom is known for using its troops sparingly, it has done so judiciously in the past. Riyadh did, for example, send troops to Bahrain to show its support for the Sunni regime in the face of extended mass protests. Of course, Syria is not Bahrain, but neither is Saudi Arabia the same country that it was in the 1960s, when it failed to achieve its goals in Yemen.

The oil-rich kingdom of today wields far greater influence than it did half a century ago. There is no question that it will wield that influence forcefully, supporting the rebels with guns and diplomacy as it struggles to outmaneuver Iran, outflank Hezbollah and oust Assad.

Fahad Nazer is a former political analyst with the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

Click to expand...

The Saudis will use all tools available to oust Assad, while taking measures to ensure that the weapons they’re supplying to the rebels do not fall into the hands of extremists

Click to expand...

As the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, it perceives an opportunity to check what it sees as Iranian plans to encircle the kingdom with hostile Shiite-dominated regimes

Click to expand...

plawolf said:

If the Russian plan works, I think there is a good chance for Russian peacekeepers to more in and secure those chemical weapons, and that could be what all those Russian amphibious landing ships were sent into the Med for.

If that was the case, it would be interesting to see if there were any behind closed doors discussions at the SCO meeting taking place now about a joint peacekeeping force from several SCO nations. The annual peace mission exercises they have been conduction is actually an almost perfect fit for a Syrian style military scenario if Syria was a member of the SCO. I remember when a lot of journo hacks and supposed 'experts' were dissing the Peace Mission scenarios as unrealistic and it all being a pretext and cover for something else, well I wonder if they still cannot see the relevance of those exercises and scenarios even today.

Its a long shot since Syria is not a member of the SCO and China has no huge interest in the country and is also trying to maintain a low profile internationally when it comes to military operations. But if China was looking to boost its standing and that of the SCOs around the world, a large military operation in Syria would be a perfect launch pad to do it.

Ironically, America and the west would have done all the heavy lifting and presented Russia and China with a gift wrapped invitation to intervene on Assad's behalf if it can be proved that it was the rebels who launched the infamous sarin gas attack on Damascus.

Russia and China could literally play back all the sound bites and rhetoric Washington and other war hungry governments have been putting out to justify military action because of the use of chemical weapons. All they need to do is switch Assad with anti-government rebels/AQ terrorists and it would be comical to see Obama, Kerry and Cameron and Co trying to counter their very own words to deny Russia and China UN sanction.

Click to expand...

Russia can send its military personnel to help in the proposed operation to eliminate Syria's chemical arms, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says.

Mr Lavrov told Russian TV that military observers could help Syria destroy its stockpiles under a US-Russian deal.

He also accused the US of using "blackmail" over a UN resolution.

The international chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, says Syria has met the deadline to submit details of its estimated 1,000-tonne chemical arsenal.

This was the first step in a deal, brokered by Russia and the United States, to eliminate the weapons by the middle of next year.

Click to expand...

kalel17 said:

Russia has offered to send troops to help with the removal of chemical weapons, Lavrov also invited arab countries to help as well.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Now here is the other shoe. Even if Syria and Assad sign the sheet of paper. The chemical weapons inspectors are only allowed to count what is admitted. That's the loopholes. Its up to the intelligence services in the region to confirm. Remember Libya? They signed the CWT to but once Ghadafi went and met his maker the new government discovered a ton of undisclosed WMD. The US has been on Russia because the Russians are signatory's but only disclosed part of the chemical weapons the US intelligence service knows them to have. The US has been disposing of its but it takes a long time to do the job properly.
now some may argue that Russia would know, and they may for a food amount but there is another player in the WMD market who has been in the mix. North Korea.

Click to expand...

Agreement reached on UN resolution on Syria weapons
Published September 27, 2013 | Associated Press
ADVERTISEMENT
UNITED NATIONS – The five permanent members of the deeply divided U.N. Security Council reached agreement Thursday on a resolution to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, a major step in taking the most controversial weapon off the battlefield of the world's deadliest ongoing conflict.

The draft resolution's demands that Syria abandon its chemical stockpile and allow unfettered access to chemical weapons experts are legally binding. But if Syria fails to comply, the council will need to adopt a second resolution to impose measures under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for military and nonmilitary actions to promote peace and security.

Nonetheless, after 2 1/2 years of inaction and paralysis, the agreement represents a breakthrough for the Security Council and rare unity between Russia, which supports Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, and the United States, which backs the opposition.

Russia and the United States jointly introduced the text to the 10 non-permanent council members Thursday night, supported by the other permanent members, Britain, France and China. A vote on the resolution depends on how the full council responds to the draft, and on how soon an international group that oversees the global treaty on chemical weapons can adopt a plan for securing and destroying Syria's stockpile.

The Russia, U.S. and British ambassadors said the executive board of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons may meet Friday in The Hague, Netherlands to agree on a document setting out its exact duties. This would enable the Security Council to possibly vote late Friday at the earliest, the ambassadors said.

A draft plan of the OPCW obtained by The Associated Press authorizes the body to inspect "any other site identified by a State Party as having been involved in the Syrian chemical weapons program, unless deemed unwarranted by the Director-General."

That goes beyond usual practice as the organization has only previously inspected sites that have been declared by member states.

The draft, being discussed by the OPCW's executive council Friday night, calls for the organization's secretariat to, "as soon as possible and no later than 1 October 2013, initiate inspections in the Syrian Arab Republic." And it lays out the target of destroying all of Syria's chemical weapons and equipment by "the first half of 2014."

The U.N. resolution will include the text of the OPCW's declaration and make it legally binding, so the OPCW must act first.

The spark for the recent flurry of diplomatic activity was the Aug. 21 poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians in a Damascus suburb, and President Barack Obama's threat of U.S. strikes in retaliation.

After U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Assad could avert U.S. military action by turning over "every single bit of his chemical weapons" to international control within a week, Russia quickly agreed. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov signed an agreement in Geneva on Sept. 13 to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control for later destruction, and Assad's government accepted.

"Just two weeks ago, tonight's outcome seemed utterly unimaginable," U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told reporters after the Security Council meeting. "Two weeks ago the Syrian regime had not even acknowledged the existence of its chemical weapons stockpiles."

She said the resolution's adoption would mark the first time since the Syrian conflict began in March 2011 that the council has imposed binding obligations on Syria of any kind.

"If implemented fully, this resolution will eliminate one of the largest previously undeclared chemical weapons programs in the world," Power said.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant and a senior U.S. State Department official described the draft resolution as "binding and enforceable."

But the draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, makes clear there is no trigger for enforcement measures if Syria fails to comply. The Russian, U.S. and British ambassadors confirmed that this would require a second resolution. But Lyall Grant said the strong language in the text — that the council "decides" that the Security Council will "impose measures under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter" in the event of non-compliance — requires members to act.

Negotiations on the draft resolution were tough, especially on the Chapter 7 issue. Russia and China have vetoed three previous Western-backed resolutions aimed at pressuring Assad to end the violence, but the chemical weapons attack proved to be a turning point.

Lyall Grant called the draft "a groundbreaking text" because for the first time it would make a determination that "use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security," which sets a new international norm.

In a clear reference to Russia, he added, "if Assad thought he could hide behind certain members of the Security Council, he will have to think again."

Lyall Grant said there were compromises and Britain would have liked much stronger language on the abuse of human rights by the regime and a decision by the council to refer perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to the International Criminal Court to be prosecuted for war crimes. Diplomats said this was discussed but Russia objected.

As a result, the draft says only that the Security Council "expresses its strong conviction that those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic should be held accountable."

The draft resolution would ban Syria from possessing chemical weapons and condemn "in the strongest terms" the use of chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack, and any other use. It also would ban any country from obtaining chemical weapons, or the technology, or equipment to produce them from Syria.

It authorizes the U.N. to send an advance team to assist the OPCW's activities in Syria. It asks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to submit recommendations to the Security Council within 10 days of the resolution's adoption on the U.N. role in eliminating Syria's chemical weapons program.

The council would review compliance with the OPCW's plans within 30 days, and every month after that.

The draft resolution strongly backs a political transition in Syria.

It would for the first time endorse the roadmap for a transition adopted in June 2012 in Geneva by key nations, and call for an international conference to be convened "as soon as possible" to implement it.

The roadmap for a political transition starts with the establishment of a transitional governing body by mutual consent with full executive powers and ends with elections — but there has been no agreement on how to implement ends with elections, but there has been no agreement on how to implement it, which would require Assad to relinquish power at some point.

The draft also calls on "all Syrian parties to engage seriously and constructively" at a new Geneva conference and be committed "to the achievement of stability and reconciliation."

A new Geneva conference has been stalled by difficulties in uniting the opposition and getting a Syrian delegation to the negotiating table, but Russia's U.N. Ambassador said "the work on that track is continuing very actively."

Lyall Grant said as soon as this resolution is adopted, Britain will push very hard for council action to demand improved access to Syria for humanitarian agencies and workers.

Print Close
URL

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...