Kerry Brokers Deal with Putin on Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 8, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                  Meeting inside the gilded walls of the Kremlin May 7, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to hammer out acceptable options for Syria, where 47-year-old Bashar al-Assad clings to power with over 70,000 civilians killed since March 11, 2011.  Putin has warned the West about supporting various terror groups seeking to oust al-Assad, without an alternative government that could see Syria deteriorate like Iraq and Afghanistan.  Kerry finds himself battling conservatives on Capitol Hill, hell-bent on arming various militias with the intent to toppling the al-Assad.  Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping back al-Assad’s attempt to maintain power, something opposed by the U.S. and European Union.  Syrian rebel groups won’t agree to any plan unless it involves ousting al-Assad.  Neither Kerry nor Putin have any clue whether Damascus would consider their plan.

             Looking form outside, most parties see growing violence and chaos, with rebel groups starting to gain the upper hand.  If U.S. conservatives get their way, they’d arm the Syrian National Army and other moderate militias with the intent of toppling al-Assad.  “The alternative,” Kerry said in a joint press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “is that Syria heads closer to an abyss, if noT over the abyss into chaos,” referring already to the mounting rebel campaigns advancing on Damascus.  Beating back insurgents, al-Assad’s military continues to resist rebel advances with swirling rumors about his regime using sarin nerve gas.  President Barack Obama has said that chemical weapons use would cross a “red line” and be a “game changer,” triggering possible military intervention.  So far, al-Assad shows no signs of giving in to rebel forces. 

           Given the damage done to the Middle East and North Africa from the so-called “Arab Spring,” the West should view the revolt in Syria suspiciously.  Instead of siding with revolutionary groups, the U.S. and Western power should trade places with al-Assad for a day and ask what they would do.  “The alternative is that the humanitarian crisis will grow.  The alternative is that there may be even a break-up of Syria,” said Kerry, not considering that whatever political entity emerges could be far more hostile to U.S. interests.  With Russia’s history in Chechnya and other North Caucasus states and China’s history with barbarians along its Northern and Eastern frontiers, yielding sovereignty to various Islamic groups could be disastrous.  Replacing al-Assad’s authoritarian regime with a Taliban-like theocracy would be far more destabilizing to Syria and the region.

             Holding a joint press conference with Kerry, Lavrov said that Russia was not concerned about whether al-Assad continued to lead Syria.  Calling for a conference to come up with an option to the current civil war, Lavrov wanted to resume the Geneva communique that called for a transitional government but not specifying al-Assad’s fate.  Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and foreign powers commented on taking over Russia or the United States?  Calling for a conference “as soon as practical—possibly and hopefully by the end of the month,” neither Kerry nor Lavrov had any suggestion where such a conference would take place.  Putin and Lavrov sought to reverse growing pressure for the U.S. to militarily support various rebel groups committed to getting rid of al-Assad.   Russia sees no stability in turning Syria over to moderate or radical Islamic groups.

             Kerry’s trip to the Kremlin hoped to get more cooperation on Syria from Kremlin to transition al-Assad out of power.  Hoping to get “a growing crescendo of nations who want to push for a peaceful resolution, rather that the chaos that comes with the break-up of the country,” Kerry encouraged the Russians to help end the conflict.   China remains steadfast on the U.N. Security Council, refusing to back resolution condemning al-Assad’s government for cracking down on rebel groups.   Kerry insisted that the goal of a peace conference is “to persuade the government and opposition together . . . to fully implement the Geneva communiqué” that asked all parties to come to the table to negotiate transition to a new government.  Despite the Geneva communiqué and other peace efforts, the al-Assad government shows no interest in surrendering its sovereignty to any rebel group.

         Obama showed keen political instincts dispatching Kerry to meet with Putin on Syria.  However Syria eventually turns out, Barack knows he’ll have to face Russia and China in the U.N. Security Council.  If Obama acquiesces to conservative demands to arm Syrian rebel groups, it could cause more civilian deaths and anarchy, failing to oust al-Assad’s Baathist Shiite government.  Getting on the same page as Russia and China, gives Barack the most clout to eventually settle the crisis, even if it means keeping al-Assad in power.  Sovereign governments must stand on principle that no unlawful rebellion should take down a U.N.-recognized state.  If permanent members of the U.N. Security Council side with various rebel forces, it would set a dangerous precedent and encourage more rebellions.  If al-Assad decides to go, it must be by consensus not at the barrel of a gun.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.