Now prove you still have the art of the deal, Donald
Yes, Trump was right to make a show of strength to Assad. But, says this former US ambassador...
SAY what you like about Donald Trump’s rocky start as leader of the free world, but he should be congratulated for taking swift military action in response to President Assad’s use of chemical weapons. By sending Tomahawk missiles to obliterate the al-Shayrat air base – from which Syrian air force jets launched their sickening Sarin gas attack last week – Trump succeeded at a stroke in doing what Barack Obama had so abjectly failed to do: enforce his own ill-advised ‘red line’ warning of 2012 over the use of chemical weapons.
To the astonishment of the world’s nations – and none more than Russia – Trump jettisoned the narrow, nationalist ‘America first’ rhetoric of his campaign and did what any US president, including Hillary Clinton, would have done – strike fast and hard against a regime that thinks it can commit war crimes and break international law with impunity. It was one of the greatest foreign policy U-turns of all time from a president who once told the American people ‘we should stay the hell out of Syria’.
Trump’s strike against Assad for using Sarin was, I believe, entirely the right thing to do. No regime should be allowed to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention – to which Syria and Russia are signatories – without consequences. It is one of the pillars of international arms control.
But did Trump do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Did he hit Syria because he was emotionally carried away by the sight of choking babies? Or did he want to look a resolute and decisive Commanderin-Chief in contrast to what he considers Obama’s dithering?
Or was he trying to divert attention from the charge that he and his advisers are beholden to the Russians, an accusation that might yet force him from office and is being investigated by the intelligence agencies and Congressional committees?
Possibly it was a combination of all three. In short, the jury is still out on whether the Syrian raid was an impetuous flash-in-the-pan or the beginnings of a new Trump approach to world affairs.
CERTAIN things are clear. Not only has Trump put Assad and President Putin on notice that further use of chemical weapons could invite similar massive retaliation. He has also seized back the strategic initiative in the Middle East from Russia.
We must not forget that to much preening and self-congratulation, Russia brokered a deal with Assad in 2013 to remove Syria’s chemical weapons. We were told all stocks had been removed. It was something of a diplomatic triumph for Putin, who was seen as the grand master of the geopolitical chess board.
But with authorship of that agreement came responsibility for its integrity and full implementation. No wonder Moscow has been spitting with rage. It has either been played for a fool by Assad or been caught red-handed, colluding with him in his use of hidden stockpiles of Sarin. Putin’s Syria strategy is in utter ruins.
His reputation is tarnished, his prestige damaged. He has had to sit on the sidelines and watch the US Navy fire cruise missiles in a number and concentration of which he can only dream.
Russia’s humiliation only adds to the delicacy of the diplomatic task that now confronts Trump. However deserved a punitive strike it may be, it is no more than a short-term fix unless harnessed to a long-term political goal.
In Syria that goal is, as it has always been, a ceasefire followed by an internationally guaranteed peace agreement involving a transition of power in Damascus that removes Assad from the scene (after the latest Sarin attack there is no way the international community can accept him as the legitimate ruler of Syria).
And all this needs to be negotiated without detriment to the campaign against the Isis caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
What is new in this situation of almost incalculable complexity is that Trump now has far more leverage than Obama ever enjoyed or even wanted. We wait to see if he can use this in the interests of peace in Syria; whether an international statesman can emerge from the chrysalis of chaos that has beset his administration since his inauguration in January.
It is a tall order against a background of White House infighting, the shambolic collapse of healthcare legislation and the growing disenchantment with Trump inside the Republican Party, including the Senate and House of Representatives.
THE faith of Trump’s true believers has been shaken by the Syrian intervention and by the dawning awareness that he favours tax cuts that will overwhelmingly favour the rich. It is hard to see how international relations can be quarantined from this disorder. Much depends on the skills of the three ‘grown-ups’ who deal with abroad – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defence Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser Lieut Gen HR McMaster – and whether Trump will let them get on with building a coherent foreign and security policy strategy – a Trump doctrine if you like.
They will have the encouragement of most of the world’s nations, including Britain, France, Germany, Turkey and the Sunni-Arab powers of the Middle East, all of whom have strongly supported the strike against Syria (Turkey’s support will have stuck in Putin’s craw since he has been assiduously courting President Erdogan).
It is a unique and doubtless gratifying moment for Trump to receive the plaudits of countries such as these. Now he and his advisers must keep up the momentum. The first priority is to find out whether there is still some way of working with the Russians, without whom no Syrian deal is possible. By coincidence, Tillerson will be in Moscow this week.
The Russians will probably try to work off their frustration by giving him a hard time. My advice to him is to ‘keep calm and carry on’. Be patient. The Russians need you more than you need them.
After the bombing of the St Petersburg metro, Moscow has the strongest possible incentive to work with Washington against terrorism. A pragmatic understanding over Syria is perfectly possible.
We have to hope that Tillerson, this diplomatic novice, will be equal to a task that will demand both finesse and tough talking. But, thanks to his president, he will at least be speaking from a position of strength.
Can a statesman emerge from the chrysalis of chaos?