Narrow interests rule
SIR — I couldn’t agree more with Gideon Rachman (Pouring fuel on the Syrian blaze — where will it end? October 8). This country and region has become a centrepiece of deadly ideological conflicts whose calamitous effects ring throughout the world. Yes, the “nations that have intervened in Syria are motivated, to a large extent, by fear”. The western bloc is anxious about stemming the symptoms flowing from the so-called war on terror. The eastern front, Russia to be exact, has entered the military fray in Syria to prevent the blowback from religious fundamentalism. And regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to fuel an internal schism going back more than a millennium.
Lacking is courage to think and act beyond narrow nationalist interests. Perhaps this is an inevitable outcome of international relations that prize, above all, protection and promotion of one’s advantage, even at risk to global order. What is a result of such thinking? Waves of displaced citizens from Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia seeking safer and better lives in European countries that are ironically com- plicit in the destabilisation of their countries. What is a cause? We do well to remember that, before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, the concept of terrorism was limited to the ragtag al-Qaeda, with no international footprint. Since these invasions, in pursuit of foreign policies based on national self-regard or exceptional- ism, our globe has not found peace and stability.
But is this situation hopeless? Notwithstanding the internecine conflicts in Burundi and Sudan, I believe humanity has reached a critical moment of optimism. After two world wars, there is no appetite for another, not least because it would spell the end of human civilisation as we know it.
Gradually, though, I see the West and eastern blocs forming a formidable alliance against Islamic State, whose callous brutality harks back to the medieval ages. Surely we have come far since those ages.
Jeffrey Sehume
Kwa-Thema