To the eyes of the international community, it was nothing less than a Russian diplomatic coup. I am talking, of course, about negotiations between the United States and Russia over the fate of Syrian chemical weapons that took place last month in Geneva. In a situation that appeared to be inevitably spiraling towards United States’ intervention, the efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his long trusted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have quietly stunned U.S. diplomats in their pragmatism and tact. The deal, which would allow United Nations weapons inspectors into Syria and create a realistic timeline to destroy all chemical weapons stockpiles, was welcomed by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry remained skeptical about Syrian compliance, and warned that any faltering in the agreement on the side of Syria could result in U.S. military action.
The events in Geneva mark an important diplomatic success for Putin and the Russian Federation. Absent the imposing international influence that existed under the auspices of the Soviet Union, Russia has desired a return to prominence in their international standing. Using their relationship with Syria as a springboard, they were able to seize the initiative in the discussion over chemical weapons in grand fashion, pushing back on any ideas of U.S. unilateralism (and American exceptionalism, if you read the Putin’s opinionated editorial piece in the New York Times). For Russia, it was a diplomatic victory that no doubt lifted the confidence of Russian diplomats and made Russia once again a very relevant actor on the international stage. As Americans, however, we must be wary of diminished U.S. influence, and vigilant in our commitment to moral standards.
As the war in Afghanistan slowly draws to a close in the next year, and the events in Iraq steadily dissipate from our consciouses into our memories, Americans appear to be conflicted over their continued role as an international “defender of freedom.” Having grown up myself in a post-Soviet world, I have only ever experienced the United States as a unilateral political force, especially with the foreign policy of the Bush presidency largely defining my formative years in school. With the great degree of political backlash against the Bush years that occurred in the 2008 election, it seemed to me that many Americans, naturally war wary, were hopeful for a president that would remove our nation from such exhausting conflicts. At the time, I strongly echoed this sentiment, recognizing Iraq as a failed U.S. experiment in nation building and Afghanistan as a righteous struggle sidetracked by the excesses of American foreign policy in Iraq. The US had made too many mistakes in the new millennium, and most Americans were ready to move past them.
And then Syria happened. When the Arab Spring arose, I was just graduating high school, focused more on my summer plans than the rapidly changing geopolitical calculus of the Middle East. University exposed me to many more ideas, and as a Political Science major I found myself both intrigued and skeptical of a changing Arab world. Indeed, it wasn’t until the summer after my sophomore year, while attending summer classes at Georgetown University that I finally took the time to gain a mental foothold on the Syrian conflict. Among the vast humanitarian disasters and international political maneuverings, I discovered a social phenomenon that I had quite naively not expected to stumble upon—a lack of motivation by the American public to want to do anything about the conflict. I’ll be the first to tell you Syria is a messy situation, and that Americans deep aversion to Middle Eastern intervention is no doubt warranted after Iraq and Afghanistan. What troubles me greatly about public ambivalence to Syria is what such an attitude portends for the future of U.S. international relations. Have our misguided and poorly executed forays into building democracy abroad spoiled our once brimming optimism about the potential for U.S. intervention in international conflicts? Or have we more concretely proved that international intervention in and of itself is simply misguided?
The White House offers us some example about the contradicting state of affairs in America today. As opinion polls in the New York Times and USA Today increasingly display public resistance to military intervention, politicians in Washington appear to be looking for any excuse to intervene in Syria militarily. The executive, submitting to the purist of democratic tendencies, wishes to reflect public sentiment and keep our nation out of a war. Nonetheless, it is within the president’s power to take military action if he deems it necessary, or as Obama made the case on national television, morally responsible. These back and forth pressures have been the cause of strong statements from Washington, often followed up by empty actions.
In August of 2012, Obama made his oft quoted remark of setting a “red line,” upon which if crossed by the Syrian government, U.S. action would be swift and decisive. The “line” has now been crossed twice, and U.S. action has been anything but divisive. It has become Obama’s invisible red line.
Thinking back to the recent negotiations between Russia and the United States over Syrian chemical weapons, I offer a few thoughts. Military families breathed a collective sigh of relief, knowing that at least for now their sons and daughters will remain far away from the battle lines in Damascus and Aleppo. In Moscow, the Kremlin was all smiles, pleased at the results of Russian pragmatism against U.S. intransigence. Perhaps the most satisfied of all parties, Assad graciously welcomed an alternative to US military intervention, now confident that he can maintain his war machine without having to submit to Western will. It may well be that the era of engaging and far-reaching U.S. diplomacy is slowly coming to an end, hemmed in by rising powers such as China, Russia, Brazil and Iran. For myself, I simply believe that a nation committed to freedom and democracy such as the United States owes it to itself to continue to strive for those goals, not just for its own citizens, but for people all around the world.
What do you think of the U.S. partnership with Russia to rid Syria of chemical weapons? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
