With the global economy
an unmitigated mess, should President Obama,
rather than dithering with his
hand on the trigger, decisively do what he
must in Syria -and let the world move on?
Obama's Syria 'Zugzwang' Clogs Global
Economic Progress (Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia)
"Take, for example, Obama's refusal to meet with President Putin
in Moscow before the G20 because of the recent granting of temporary asylum to 'traitor'
Edward Snowden. This, of course, was combined with another bitter foretaste -
that of needing to find a multilateral approach to Syria, a situation that has
become especially strained in recent days. Although the summit agenda included
Syria, meeting organizers made it clear that it would only be discussed informally.
... Meanwhile, President Obama headed to St. Petersburg with almost the sole
intention of teaching Assad a lesson."
Vladimir Putin: In the game of global chess, the zugzwang Obama faces may be attributed to the Russian president. But can both he and President Obama both come out of the Syria with all of their pieces intact.
NEW YORK: The
world today is like a chessboard. One after the other, kings are falling - if
we so consider the dictators of Arab countries. They disappear under fire from large
numbers of assembled "pawns," if we so consider the countless victims
of nations shaken by the "Arab Spring." Finally, a situation has
arisen that in the language of chess is called zugzwang,
which in German means "a forced move." In other words a situation in
which any move a player makes leads to a worsening of his position. If we
translate that into the language of today's politics, for example in Syria, it
means that any action or inaction leads to a deterioration of the situation. In
other words "you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
Where the Neva waters
flow
It
seems as if the G20 Summit has never before taken place in such an ominous atmosphere
as this year, further exposing the problems, in this case socio-economic, that confront
the world today. It is clear the resolving them with pistols drawn in the
Middle East will be even more complicated than under normal circumstances. To
briefly outline the issues discussed at the summit, they were: the rise in
unemployment, high levels of national debt, and the low economic growth afflicting
many countries. So the main focus of discussions at Strelna
was on restructuring the global economy, with all of the moving parts that entails.
Finding
a common denominator for such a diverse set of economies as those represented
by the summit participants, not to mention their political "discrepancies,"
which also have an impact on policy development, is complicated enough. Therefore,
along with all of the differing approaches to resolving common woes among the
"20," there is the issue of coordinating their steps. One of these is
on tax evasion and the related fight against offshore enterprises. According to
observers, in the course of the talks in St. Petersburg, this was one of the
most critical issues, and one they kept coming back to. Not coincidentally,
this was the first time the issue was included on the agenda of such a
high-level summit.
Of
particular importance, the fact was emphasized that in aggregate, G20 members
represent 90 percent of global GDP, and 80 percent of world trade. So it isn't
hard to imagine how many untaxed billions are pouring out of the G20 "pipe"
and into other offshore ones. In short, world leaders have decided to work together
to try and cut off that flow. The question is, can they manage to do so given
the growing discord, not only political but economic, that characterize their relations,
particularly those between the U.S. and China? For the host of the summit,
Russia, relations have recently become strained with the European Union, which
has accused Moscow of imposing discriminatory duties on cars and a number of
other things.
Of
course, these "barbs," considering the range of global issues
discussed at the summit, are "small potatoes," although they added to
an overall atmosphere of disharmony.
Take,
for example, Barack Obama's refusal to meet with President Putin in Moscow
before the summit because of the recent granting of temporary asylum to "traitor"
Edward Snowden. This, of course, was combined with another bitter foretaste -
that of needing to find a multilateral approach to Syria, a situation that has
become especially strained in recent days, with an outpouring of emotion
inflaming an already-heated climate. Although the summit agenda included Syria,
meeting organizers made it clear that it would only be discussed informally.
And how! Among those meeting on the banks of the Neva were the very leaders who
in recent days have been preoccupied with a pivotal question: to strike or not
to strike Damascus, which is suspected of using chemical weapons against its
own citizens. Meanwhile, President Obama headed to St. Petersburg with almost
the sole intention of teaching Assad a lesson, having in his hands some evidence
of a crimes provided by his own intelligence services. As we know, this data
has yet to be confirmed by U.N. experts.
The Kerry
variation: we knew, but kept quiet
Nevertheless,
let us examine the assertions of John Kerry, who five times over the past few
days has been heard proclaiming at various briefings that it was Assad's
government that organized this barbaric act - citing no concrete evidence. Hearing
Kerry's description of the details of the crime, one cannot help but recall the
well-known story of the sergeant's widow who flogged herself. According to the
version Kerry lays out, Washington found out about preparations for the
chemical attack three days before it was carried out. And, according to the
same source that informed Kerry, official representatives of the Syrian authorities
visited the location of the attack in advance to warn residents about the need
to wear protective masks.
Without
refuting this version of the Syrian authorities' guilt, let us note that there
is clearly no way that its loose ends tie up. Three questions immediately
arise. If Washington was aware of the planned attack, why didn't it try to
prevent it, responding only after the tragedy had occurred? If it is true that local
residents had been warned of the danger, then why were there so many victims?
Finally the key question: Would Damascus really disclose this barbaric act beforehand,
thus setting itself up for an international "flogging?"
In
time, we'll have the answers to these and other questions related to the crime
in the suburbs of Damascus. One answer was already given by President Putin in
his favored flamboyant style, and after a protracted "diplomatic"
silence. He said that while Syrian government troops were advancing, those incessantly
calling for foreign military intervention held a trump card, which in his words
was "utter folly." In this case, he quite was clearly referring to the Nobel
Peace Prize awarded Barack Obama, who now finds himself in a situation where
even getting along with others, even more so leaders closest to him, is proving
difficult. His promise to "teach Assad a lesson" hangs in the air,
raising plenty of questions about America's good name, and on a personal level,
Obama's good name as president of the United States.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
Besides,
many allies for various reasons have decided to steer clear of military action.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, while
condemning the use of chemical weapons, has already stated that he doesn't see
a role for the North Atlantic Alliance “in an international response to the
Syrian regime.” In fact, not counting the readiness of France, Turkey, and several
Arab countries to support retaliatory action, Barack Obama can essentially rely
on no one except perhaps members of his own Congress, which reconvened September
9 after its summer break. But hardly anyone would give a 100 percent guarantee that
even they will give the White House the "all-clear."
Obama resolves
to go on
Yet,
as more and more observers say, it isn't just the stance of lawmakers, but the
stance of the president himself, who, raising his hand and remaining with his hand
raised, never quite resolves to take the decisive step to punish the “thug and
murderer,” as Secretary Kerry has resolved to call Bashar
al-Assad. Meanwhile, preparations for possible action remain in full swing - four
destroyers and several submarines in the eastern Mediterranean are now on alert
and are capable of firing over 400 cruise missiles onto Syria.
For
now, Obama prefers to threaten Damascus with his military "finger" rather
than setting his forces in motion, citing the fact that the operation has no
time frame and may be carried out "a month from now." There are a
number of ways to assess Obama's tactics, but for many observers, even those
who favor a military solution, they are a clear manifestation of indecision and
weakness so characteristic of the president at other critical moments.
In
fact, Michael
Goodwin of The New York Post makes
the stern judgment that the president's stance “is all about saving his own
bacon. He talked himself into no-man's land and is now desperately seeking an
escape hatch.” One can only guess at what sort of commentary might follow were
Obama to take the fast and hard decision for an immediate strike against Syria.
We
cannot rule out the possibility of this scenario. In any case, the atmosphere
of foreboding has swept its way over to the United States, where, according to The New York Times, the intelligence
services plan to talk to hundreds of Syrians living here in order to prevent potential
terrorist attacks against American institutions should Washington carry out its
threat. And while it is difficult now to predict the future course of events,
one would hope that these preventive measures will remain confined to the current
military hype, as we move onto a more secure diplomatic track.
