While the eastern part of the Syrian city of Aleppo is still under the unprecedented heavy bombardment from Syrian and Russian warplanes, leaving hundreds of civilians dead and injured, the Security Council in New York met on Saturday, Oct. 8 to discuss and vote on two rival resolutions for Syria, in an absurd scene, which is an irresponsible waste of time when every minute counts for the besieged and slaughtered population of the martyred city.
Russia vetoed, for the fifth time since the Syrian crisis began, a French draft resolution demanding an immediate halt to the bombing campaign by Syrian and Russian governments against rebel-held districts in Aleppo. The rival Russian draft, which made no mention of a bombing halt, was rejected and failed to get the minimum votes needed. Both sides failed in offering hope or relief to the people of Aleppo, and the key powers showed that they are more divided than ever over a course of action to end the tragedy of a war-ravaged country.
Statements from representatives of the five permanent members reveal the gap and tensions between those in charge of world peace and security. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that the bombing of Aleppo was killing civilians and destroying hospitals and schools and had nothing to do with combatting terrorism. “It is the annihilation of Aleppo,” he said, declaring that the continued bombing will leave the city in ruin, a place where citizens will be left to their “executioners.” He compared Aleppo to Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, Srebrenica during the Bosnian War, and mostly to Grozny the capital of Chechnya in the end of the last century where the same Putin’s forces caused the death of 200,000 people and left the city devastated.
Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin noted that activities over Aleppo had gone down on Friday, saying “We hope this trend will continue.” This is a fact which proves coordination between Russian war actions and its diplomacy. The British representative addressed his Russian colleague saying, “a lonely veto, and then just four votes in favor of your text — a double humiliation.” He then noted that this text was a cynical attempt to divert attention from “your veto today that once again denied any hope for the people of Aleppo.” The United States representative said, “What Russia wants is for there to be more talk, while they seek to take the city by brutal force. What we want is less talk and more action to stop the slaughter.”
The Arab representative and ambassador of Egypt expressed his frustration saying, “instead of holding serious political consultations in its open and close sessions to stop the Syrian blood letting, consultations have amounted to no more than a repetition of their positions and a dialogue of the deaf.”
The United Nations special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, warned during a press conference last week, that Aleppo will be totally destroyed by the end of the year. He called on Al-Nusra fighters to leave the city escorted by the United Nations to spare the civilians more suffering. He estimated their number to be around 900 from a total of 8,000. His suggestion resurfaced on Monday when President Putin and his Turkish host, President Erdoğan, expressed support for the idea which will allow relief and humanitarian assistance to reach 275,000 civilians in eastern Aleppo.
While President Putin is calling for a political solution in Syria, he is doing everything to enhance Russia’s posture and presence in that bloodied country. The Russian parliament approved the government agreement with Assad over the military presence in Syria. On Monday, it was announced that the Russian facilities in Tartus will be transformed to a permanent military base. The Russian Foreign Ministry warned of any attacks against the Syrian army by the U.S. anti-aircraft advanced missile system S-300 was installed, in what a U.S. military joked as an initiative anti-Nusra Air Force.
Putin’s policy seems to be in establishing hard facts to tilt the balance for president Assad and face the new U.S. president with different equation on the ground. The U.S. administration is discussing now some alternatives to the failed Kerry diplomacy, which was not supported by any show of force or determination by President Obama at any time. He kept repeating that he will not send U.S. military abroad to be killed. That was never an issue. No one from the Syrian opposition asked for direct U.S. intervention. All they needed was a sincere and serious support from their “friends.” In a Congress Armed Forces Commission meeting on Oct. 27, 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham asked if the U.S. strategy is to remove Assad, when the administration is doing nothing to this end — instead they armed and trained combatants with the condition of targeting only the Islamic State group (I.S.). The last position of the Obama policy was an empty threat to hold all cooperation with Russia against terrorists if it didn’t halt its ferocious attack against Aleppo. It was ridiculed in world capitals, considering that Russia already achieved all its objectives in Syria, in war and in so-called diplomacy.
The reasons for contempt and doubt from the United States’ Arab allies in the Middle East was in a dubious pattern of behavior toward the Iranian expansionist policy in the region and its flagrant interference in its countries, faced by the United States overlooking the dangers represented on the social and demographic composition of the whole Levant. America’s policy in Syria led to more destruction, a longer war and the domination of its adversaries in Moscow, Tehran and Damascus. If the strategic vision of the United States in the region is to encourage demographic change and a war against the Sunni majority, there will be no end in sight for the wars in that part of the world, and the implications would be catastrophic. The recent declarations of Hillary Clinton of arming the Kurds as a reliable force to fight I.S., ignoring their expansionist national aspirations, is a continuation of the same obvious mistakes, in relying on minorities and alienating the majority, giving reason for more extremism when least needed.
