James F. Jeffrey
To read this article on our website, go to:
http://washin.st/1aOkxQn
******************************
The Obama administration should take steps to ameliorate the negative
effects of the chemical disarmament agreement, restore Washington's
credibility, and preserve its ability to use force if necessary.
******************************
The good news about the new U.S.-Russian framework agreement on Syria is
that it could remove the Assad regime's chemical weapons (CW) stocks,
eliminating a major tool against the insurgents. This result would have
been unimaginable if Washington had not threatened military action. The
bad news begins with the major obstacles the agreement places in the
path of any credible U.S. threat of unilateral force, among other
troublesome issues. Given President Obama's position that military force
-- even a justified, low-risk operation -- requires support from a
recalcitrant Congress, the agreement might be the "least bad" outcome.
But Washington now faces the urgent task of minimizing the damage to its
Syria policy and broader regional strategy.
USE OF FORCE OFF THE TABLE?
The terms that Secretary of State John Kerry worked out with his Russian
counterpart Sergei Lavrov may hinder unilateral military action if
Bashar al-Assad violates the agreement or uses CW again. The fourth
paragraph of the document
(http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/214247.htm) states that in the
event of such violation or use, the two sides commit to take the issue
to the UN Security Council, which "should" issue a Chapter VII
resolution (i.e. authorizing the use of force). But any such resolution
would require the acquiescence of Russia, which still disputes that the
Assad regime was responsible for the August 21 CW attack. What guarantee
does Washington have that Moscow would not take the same "fly in the
face of the facts" stance on a Chapter VII resolution?
Secretary Kerry stated repeatedly over the weekend that the use of
force, including unilaterally by the United States, is still in play.
But taking such action without a Security Council deliberation would
violate at least the spirit of the agreement. As Lavrov said on
Saturday, "there is nothing said about the use of force" in the
document.
AGREEMENT TILTED TOWARD ASSAD
Despite the prospect of potentially eliminating Syria's CW, the
framework agreement could wind up helping Assad and hurting the
opposition. Even its most helpful provision -- checking the regime's
ability to use CW, whose tactical utility in clearing urban areas was
shown on August 21 -- comes with problematic limitations. For example,
assuming Assad complies, he would still be able to implicitly threaten
the use of CW until mid-2014, the agreement's proposed deadline for
destroying the weapons. Such threats could limit the opposition's
tactical options.
The rebels stand to lose even more in the political realm. Assad has
gone from an almost-friendless pariah to a partner of the United States
and Russia in resolving a problem created by his criminal behavior, only
months after his government was condemned by over 100 states in the UN
General Assembly. Furthermore, as the focus turns to carrying out the
agreement, his ability to blackmail the international community will
soar. In particular, the need for his cooperation and control over CW
sites and routes thereto in the face of rebel resistance may well tilt
international sympathy toward him, probably including endorsement of a
"temporary" ceasefire.
But ceasefires are almost impossible in insurgent conflicts. There are
no fixed lines, and governments tend to assert their sovereign right to
maintain their monopoly of force. In Syria, the regime would no doubt
view attacks on rebels outside areas under their control as legitimate,
particularly if "justified" for the sake of implementing the CW
agreement. Under such circumstances, the insurgency would eventually
shift from a legitimate uprising supported by most of the international
community to an obstacle impeding the agreement.
REGIONAL BALANCE TILTED TOWARD RUSSIA?
Russia has been playing a smart Syria game with limited cards, using its
arms deliveries, UN vetoes, and naval maneuvers to safeguard its
interests, support its ally Assad, and stymie the United States.
Moreover, by making Putin its partner, Washington has formally elevated
him to the U.S. level despite Russia's lack of regional hard power and
its backing of a murderous regime. One proof of this elevation is
Putin's September 11 New York Times op-ed, which was filled with
outrageous assertions on America's role in the world and the insurgents'
responsibility for the August 21 attack. The lack of foreign outcry
against his rant has been telling.
REVERSING THE SHIFT
To counter the CW agreement's downsides, the most important step is to
portray it as a "least bad" move with potential positive aspects, rather
than a historical success analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis
resolution. The deal does nothing to solve the larger Syrian crisis and
will likely encourage Assad to fight on without compromise. But the
United States can help change perceptions that it is "chained" by
accelerating its efforts to arm the rebels, coordinating better with
nonextremist factions, and developing a common approach with regional
governments.
Washington should also make clear that it will strike if Assad violates
the agreement or uses CW again. For now, the administration can be vague
about whether such a strike would come after obtaining a UN Chapter VII
resolution, after failing to reach one, or immediately and without UN
recourse. To this end, the United States should keep sufficient forces
in the Mediterranean to carry out the threat if necessary.
Beyond the agreement, the past two weeks have raised questions about
America's willingness to use military force, whether in Syria, Iran, or
elsewhere. The president himself will have to take steps to restore U.S.
credibility by recognizing that this is now a serious international
problem, to which his language and decisions have contributed. One
helpful move would be to eschew the "I am ending American wars" theme.
For Americans, "wars" have become conflated with any use of force,
however limited or necessary. The administration could also bolster its
standing by ensuring that U.S. military trainers remain in Afghanistan
and stating that this outcome is important to the president.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, the president will have to deal with the
dilemmas arising from both the Syrian CW developments and the use of
"redlines" in general. His September 15 comments on Iran were a welcome
step, but he should still spell out his views on military force and what
he will do if Iran crosses his redline, using themes from his 2009
Nobel Peace Prize speech. Although avoiding specificity on redlines is
usually a good idea, being more specific could heighten U.S. credibility
under the current circumstances.
******************************
James F. Jeffrey is the Philip Solondz Distinguished Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute.
******************************
Tweet this item:
http://twitter.com/home?status=http://washin.st/1aOkxQn
Share this item on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://washin.st/1aOkxQn
Follow us on Twitter: @washinstitute
******************************
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
No comments:
Post a Comment