Ceylal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 8,577
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
The Middle East in 2019, between tyranny and chaos
#EnjeuxMondiaux
Richard Falk
January 1, 2019
Even though 2019 opens in a climate of tension and controversy, it is hoped that moderating and stabilizing forces will bring unprecedented peace and stability to the region in the twenty-first century.
Since the First World War and the hypocrisy of the Sykes-Picot Accord and the Balfour Declaration , the Middle East has been the scene of geopolitical rivalries and nationalist narratives that bitterly oscillated between the extremes of tyranny and chaos.
A second post-Ottoman milestone was reached in 1956, when the United States supplanted their main European allies, the United Kingdom and France, in the role of leading Western interests in the region. At the time, the aim was to stem the USSR during the Cold War, protect Western access to the Gulf's trade routes and oil, and ensure Israeli security.
A new phase began after the end of the geopolitical bipolarity dating back to the Cold War. Shortly after, the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States served as a pretext for a series of disastrous interventions in the name of the fight against terrorism.
Violence and disorder
Then came the 2011 uprisings: a series of popular movements overthrew several authoritarian regimes, with in their wake a series of foreign interventions, proxy wars, protracted conflicts, causing appalling suffering to civilians throughout the region .
One of the consequences of these anti-authoritarian uprisings was a surge of counterrevolutionary violence and an intensification of repressive practices. Beyond this, the extreme hostility of the US / Saudi Arabia / Israel axis to Iran threatens - for years - to degenerate into a regional war of frightful ferocity.
The accession of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, two years ago, amounted to pouring huge quantities of oil on the fires that were already ravaging the Arab world
In this whirlwind of violence and disorder, the accession of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, two years ago, amounted to pouring huge quantities of oil on the fires that were already ravaging the Arab world.
These apprehensions soon became clear: it came to give the green light to the Saudi / UAE ultimatum against Qatar ; to do everything possible to help Israel to impose a state based on apartheid on the Palestinian people ; and to build a warmongering alliance with Riyadh and Tel Aviv, leading to a form of final confrontation with Iran.
As the world has learned at his expense, and often in pain, Trump is the least predictable political figure ever to lead the United States. On the home front, its policies have been ideologically coherent, relying far-right on issues as diverse as immigration, trade, taxes, legality and respect for constitutional guidelines.
Whimsical behavior
In terms of foreign policy, we have witnessed the usual boastfulness and treacherous behavior of Trump, but nothing very disturbing - except perhaps the decision to move the embassy in Jerusalem - at least until the sudden announcement, these last days, the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria .
At a protest in Gaza on April 13, 2018, Palestinians burn portraits of Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (AFP)
This decision shook the national security establishment in Washington and further undermined the confidence of NATO allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, in America's geopolitical stance. In that case, Trump ignored the unanimous advice of his warmongering advisers and ministers and, without consulting his allies, justified his withdrawal by falsely claiming that the Islamic State (IS) group was now out of harm's way.
The announced resignation of Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, testifies to the extent of the government crisis, especially as it intensified by his letter condemning the presidential initiative (without specifically mentioning it). Democrats and pillars of liberalism like CNN and other New York Times immediately revered as the Holy Scriptures this letter of resignation.
The US military presence in Syria has always been problematic, too modest to change the situation, but strong enough to prolong the sufferings of the Syrians
Even a group of Republicans has risen - finally - to denounce Trump's new Syrian policy, calling it a betrayal of the Kurds, a bonus to the Russians and the Assad regime, and blessed bread for the undefeated legions of the IE.
Even assuming that Trump does not shoot himself in the foot, the virtues of his initiative deserve a more balanced consideration. The US military presence in Syria has always been problematic, too modest to change the game, but strong enough to prolong the suffering of the Syrians.
Broader political disengagement
As for the IS, it is certainly not yet completely defeated, but the main actors in Syria - at this stage - that is to say the Syrian government, Russia and Iran, all have pressing motivations to achieve total victory. It is impossible to know what Turkey will do to the Kurds - who operate near its border in northern Syria and are linked to the PKK's armed struggle movement, based in the Kandil mountains in Iraq.
We can hope that Erdoğan has given Trump the assurance that he will give up any escalation against the Syrian Kurds.
The withdrawal of Syria would rather be interpreted as one of the components of a wider political disengagement, after disastrous military adventures in distant countries, the prohibitive cost has produced no political result
What gives reason to hope - especially after the withdrawal of half of the US combat contingents in Afghanistan (announced just one day after the withdrawal of Syria) - is that Trump seems willing to keep his election promise, if long postponed, to end US foreign interventions to focus on restoring the quality of life in the United States.
If that is the case, it is bad news for the Saudi and Israeli hawks - who were counting on Trump to conduct this unnatural alliance outside the gates of Tehran, not by military means, no doubt, but at least by more muscular forms of coercive diplomacy.
Trump has not really made a name for himself as a coherent or committed president, but at least it seems at the moment that the withdrawal from Syria is more to be interpreted as one of the components of a wider political disengagement, after disastrous military adventures in distant lands, whose prohibitive cost produced no political result.
A more free postcolonial Middle East
Overall, all this is not very good, but we can legitimately react more positively than the political elites in America and Western Europe. The disavowal of US foreign military intervention has been long overdue, given the record of America's policies and the trail of suffering left in the wake of its failures.
Turkish-backed Syrian fighters patrol a road in Qirata town near Jarablous, a rebel-controlled border town, on December 24, 2018 (AFP)
But more importantly, there is no doubt that there is no evidence of a coherent revision of Trump's grand strategy: less US political commitment could push regional movements to more moderation, self-determination and peaceful coexistence. This disengagement would allow the realities of a postcolonial Middle East to free itself from the chains of geopolitics towards more freedom.
Israeli leaders themselves may feel gradually encouraged to reconsider their long-term approach to the Palestinian national movement and, instead of calling for a victory leading to apartheid, to look more and more seriously at a political compromise with Israel. in advance, a true equality of the two peoples.
The context of the US withdrawal from Syria is also consistent with the trend of several recent regional developments. First, since the grotesque murder of Jamal Khashoggi behind the walls of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul, it has become less justifiable than before to make common cause with the Riyadh leadership and to consolidate the anti-Japanese alliance. Iranian between Israel and the United States
Since the grotesque murder of Jamal Khashoggi behind the walls of the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, it has become less justifiable than before to join forces with the Riyadh leadership and consolidate the anti-Iran alliance between Israel and United States
In a similar vein, the horrible Saudi intervention in Yemen, with the support of the United States, has already caused tremendous suffering and threatens to engender what is already known as "the worst famine of the last 100 years ". The steps towards a UN presence for the opening of the main Yemeni port of Hodeida - which handles 80% of food imports - will make it possible to retreat from the edge of the abyss: a humanitarian catastrophe more and more concern.
If this de-escalation continues, it could reinforce the sense of geopolitical disengagement now associated with the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, but would also be part of the American desire to stop being complicit in the war in Yemen.
Deep uncertainties
Deep uncertainties weigh on the future of the Middle East in 2019. Beyond the fact that Donald Trump has yielded to the military establishment's counter pressure, it is possible that he has - and this is not too much early - crossed the red line of tolerance capabilities of the Republican Party.
It might involve seeing him, one way or another, forced out of power and replaced by Vice President Mike Pence - who shares Trump's ideological vision on the home front but is not ready to oppose the establishment's fundamental geopolitical position on national security: its unwavering faith in the benevolence and effectiveness of US military power.
Other possible detrimental impacts: IS terrorist attacks in Europe and North America; a bloodbath in Syria while Damascus consolidates its victory; and a major Turkish offensive against the Kurds in the north of the country. None of these eventualities can be excluded and if they were to come to fruition, they would change - worse - what is reasonably expected in the region in 2019.
Nevertheless, even if 2019 opens in a climate of tension and controversy, it is hoped that the moderating and stabilizing forces will bring to the region peace and stability unprecedented in the XXI th century.
- Richard Falk is a specialist in international law and international relations who has taught at Princeton University for 40 years. In 2008, he was also appointed by the UN for a six-year term as Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.
#EnjeuxMondiaux
Richard Falk
January 1, 2019
Even though 2019 opens in a climate of tension and controversy, it is hoped that moderating and stabilizing forces will bring unprecedented peace and stability to the region in the twenty-first century.
Since the First World War and the hypocrisy of the Sykes-Picot Accord and the Balfour Declaration , the Middle East has been the scene of geopolitical rivalries and nationalist narratives that bitterly oscillated between the extremes of tyranny and chaos.
A second post-Ottoman milestone was reached in 1956, when the United States supplanted their main European allies, the United Kingdom and France, in the role of leading Western interests in the region. At the time, the aim was to stem the USSR during the Cold War, protect Western access to the Gulf's trade routes and oil, and ensure Israeli security.
A new phase began after the end of the geopolitical bipolarity dating back to the Cold War. Shortly after, the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States served as a pretext for a series of disastrous interventions in the name of the fight against terrorism.
Violence and disorder
Then came the 2011 uprisings: a series of popular movements overthrew several authoritarian regimes, with in their wake a series of foreign interventions, proxy wars, protracted conflicts, causing appalling suffering to civilians throughout the region .
One of the consequences of these anti-authoritarian uprisings was a surge of counterrevolutionary violence and an intensification of repressive practices. Beyond this, the extreme hostility of the US / Saudi Arabia / Israel axis to Iran threatens - for years - to degenerate into a regional war of frightful ferocity.
The accession of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, two years ago, amounted to pouring huge quantities of oil on the fires that were already ravaging the Arab world
In this whirlwind of violence and disorder, the accession of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, two years ago, amounted to pouring huge quantities of oil on the fires that were already ravaging the Arab world.
These apprehensions soon became clear: it came to give the green light to the Saudi / UAE ultimatum against Qatar ; to do everything possible to help Israel to impose a state based on apartheid on the Palestinian people ; and to build a warmongering alliance with Riyadh and Tel Aviv, leading to a form of final confrontation with Iran.
As the world has learned at his expense, and often in pain, Trump is the least predictable political figure ever to lead the United States. On the home front, its policies have been ideologically coherent, relying far-right on issues as diverse as immigration, trade, taxes, legality and respect for constitutional guidelines.
Whimsical behavior
In terms of foreign policy, we have witnessed the usual boastfulness and treacherous behavior of Trump, but nothing very disturbing - except perhaps the decision to move the embassy in Jerusalem - at least until the sudden announcement, these last days, the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria .
This decision shook the national security establishment in Washington and further undermined the confidence of NATO allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, in America's geopolitical stance. In that case, Trump ignored the unanimous advice of his warmongering advisers and ministers and, without consulting his allies, justified his withdrawal by falsely claiming that the Islamic State (IS) group was now out of harm's way.
The announced resignation of Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, testifies to the extent of the government crisis, especially as it intensified by his letter condemning the presidential initiative (without specifically mentioning it). Democrats and pillars of liberalism like CNN and other New York Times immediately revered as the Holy Scriptures this letter of resignation.
The US military presence in Syria has always been problematic, too modest to change the situation, but strong enough to prolong the sufferings of the Syrians
Even a group of Republicans has risen - finally - to denounce Trump's new Syrian policy, calling it a betrayal of the Kurds, a bonus to the Russians and the Assad regime, and blessed bread for the undefeated legions of the IE.
Even assuming that Trump does not shoot himself in the foot, the virtues of his initiative deserve a more balanced consideration. The US military presence in Syria has always been problematic, too modest to change the game, but strong enough to prolong the suffering of the Syrians.
Broader political disengagement
As for the IS, it is certainly not yet completely defeated, but the main actors in Syria - at this stage - that is to say the Syrian government, Russia and Iran, all have pressing motivations to achieve total victory. It is impossible to know what Turkey will do to the Kurds - who operate near its border in northern Syria and are linked to the PKK's armed struggle movement, based in the Kandil mountains in Iraq.
We can hope that Erdoğan has given Trump the assurance that he will give up any escalation against the Syrian Kurds.
The withdrawal of Syria would rather be interpreted as one of the components of a wider political disengagement, after disastrous military adventures in distant countries, the prohibitive cost has produced no political result
What gives reason to hope - especially after the withdrawal of half of the US combat contingents in Afghanistan (announced just one day after the withdrawal of Syria) - is that Trump seems willing to keep his election promise, if long postponed, to end US foreign interventions to focus on restoring the quality of life in the United States.
If that is the case, it is bad news for the Saudi and Israeli hawks - who were counting on Trump to conduct this unnatural alliance outside the gates of Tehran, not by military means, no doubt, but at least by more muscular forms of coercive diplomacy.
Trump has not really made a name for himself as a coherent or committed president, but at least it seems at the moment that the withdrawal from Syria is more to be interpreted as one of the components of a wider political disengagement, after disastrous military adventures in distant lands, whose prohibitive cost produced no political result.
A more free postcolonial Middle East
Overall, all this is not very good, but we can legitimately react more positively than the political elites in America and Western Europe. The disavowal of US foreign military intervention has been long overdue, given the record of America's policies and the trail of suffering left in the wake of its failures.
But more importantly, there is no doubt that there is no evidence of a coherent revision of Trump's grand strategy: less US political commitment could push regional movements to more moderation, self-determination and peaceful coexistence. This disengagement would allow the realities of a postcolonial Middle East to free itself from the chains of geopolitics towards more freedom.
Israeli leaders themselves may feel gradually encouraged to reconsider their long-term approach to the Palestinian national movement and, instead of calling for a victory leading to apartheid, to look more and more seriously at a political compromise with Israel. in advance, a true equality of the two peoples.
The context of the US withdrawal from Syria is also consistent with the trend of several recent regional developments. First, since the grotesque murder of Jamal Khashoggi behind the walls of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul, it has become less justifiable than before to make common cause with the Riyadh leadership and to consolidate the anti-Japanese alliance. Iranian between Israel and the United States
Since the grotesque murder of Jamal Khashoggi behind the walls of the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, it has become less justifiable than before to join forces with the Riyadh leadership and consolidate the anti-Iran alliance between Israel and United States
In a similar vein, the horrible Saudi intervention in Yemen, with the support of the United States, has already caused tremendous suffering and threatens to engender what is already known as "the worst famine of the last 100 years ". The steps towards a UN presence for the opening of the main Yemeni port of Hodeida - which handles 80% of food imports - will make it possible to retreat from the edge of the abyss: a humanitarian catastrophe more and more concern.
If this de-escalation continues, it could reinforce the sense of geopolitical disengagement now associated with the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, but would also be part of the American desire to stop being complicit in the war in Yemen.
Deep uncertainties
Deep uncertainties weigh on the future of the Middle East in 2019. Beyond the fact that Donald Trump has yielded to the military establishment's counter pressure, it is possible that he has - and this is not too much early - crossed the red line of tolerance capabilities of the Republican Party.
It might involve seeing him, one way or another, forced out of power and replaced by Vice President Mike Pence - who shares Trump's ideological vision on the home front but is not ready to oppose the establishment's fundamental geopolitical position on national security: its unwavering faith in the benevolence and effectiveness of US military power.
Other possible detrimental impacts: IS terrorist attacks in Europe and North America; a bloodbath in Syria while Damascus consolidates its victory; and a major Turkish offensive against the Kurds in the north of the country. None of these eventualities can be excluded and if they were to come to fruition, they would change - worse - what is reasonably expected in the region in 2019.
Nevertheless, even if 2019 opens in a climate of tension and controversy, it is hoped that the moderating and stabilizing forces will bring to the region peace and stability unprecedented in the XXI th century.
- Richard Falk is a specialist in international law and international relations who has taught at Princeton University for 40 years. In 2008, he was also appointed by the UN for a six-year term as Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.
