Syria: The Catalyst of the Cold War's Evolution

'The biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this; By the grace of God, America won the Cold War'- George H.W. Bush in his State of the Union address, 28 January 1992

Last week I wrote on how my ordeal came to and end, yet in a way I hoped that it would have gone on for maybe a while longer. It's not just because I enjoyed having the house to myself, but that the post for this week would have been perfect for last week. Yet it is still relevant, and it will be relevant for many more weeks to come, as the events in Syria over the last week or so send shockwaves around the globe. The war of words before, during and after the events on 14 April are more or less described below, and are unlikely to stop for a considerable period of time. Diplomacy sure is a bitch, isn't it?

Hug it out?

Syria is no stranger to the likes of Britain, France and the United States. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War (1914-1918) saw the British and French take control of the region, with the French fighting the short lived Arab Kingdom of Syria in 1920. It wasn't until 1946 that Syria fully gained its independence, but it didn't escape the attention of the West. The CIA failed to depose Syrian President Shukri al-Quwatli in 1957, before joining with Egypt to form the United Arab Republic in 1958. Syria's subsequent wars with Israel further alienated it from the USA, especially as it is deemed a 'safe haven' for terrorists. According to the United State Department of State's 'State Sponsors of Terrorism', Syria has been on this particular list since it was first conceived on 29 December 1979. There is no surprise then that the West have taken a harsh line against the Syrian government, and for it to commit atrocities against its own citizens has made up the minds of some Western leaders that enough is surely enough.

On 7 April, the Syrian city of Douma, which at the time was held by Islamist rebel group Jaysh al-Islam as part of the ongoing Syrian Civil War (2011-), was the target of a chemical attack by the Syrian government. On 12 April, France claimed it had 'proof' that chemical weapons were used 'by Bashar al-Assad's regime', and is just the latest use of chemical weapons by al-Assad's government. According to the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, 85 chemical weapon incidents have been recorded in Syria since 2013, which has also prompted the United Nations (UN) and OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) to conduct their own investigations. The Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on 4 April 2017 (the town, at the time, was held by the jihadist militant group Tahrir al-Sham) was the subject of an OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism investigation, and concluded that Sarin, a nerve agent, had been used. Three days after the incident, the United States launched 59 tomahawk missiles at the government controlled Shayrat airbase, and was the first direct military action against the al-Assad regime by the United States. It would not be the last.

An American B-1 bomber, capable of deploying long range air-to-surface missiles

Raed al-Saleh, the head of the volunteer organisation known as the White Helmets, announced that 'seventy people suffocated to death and hundreds are still suffocating' in Douma, as of 8 April. Sarin has been cited as the chemical used in this latest attack, with the French statement cited before stating that chlorine may have also been used. The Syrian government denied these accusations, with the state news agency Sana reporting that 'Jaish al-Islam terrorists are in a state of collapse and their media outlets are [making] chemical attack fabrications in an exposed and failed attempt to obstruct advances by the Syrian Arab army'. A day after the attack on Douma, Syria's ally Russia rose in defence of al-Assad, with the Russian Foreign Ministry calling it another example in a 'continuous series of fake news' (where have I heard that term before?). Igor Konashenkov, the Russian Defence Ministry Spokesman, announced on 12 April that Russia had evidence of the Douma attack being orchestrated by the United Kingdom. Iran, who also supports the Syrian government, announced that it wasn't 'logical' for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when they have the upper hand in the war against 'armed terrorists'. Both Russia and Iran claim that the Douma attack, whether planned by the West or 'a new plot against the government and nation of Syria', was just an excuse for military action to be taken against Syria. 

Military action was exactly that response. 10 April saw President Donald Trump (USA), Prime Minister Theresa May (UK) and President Emmanuel Macron (France) hold a joint telephone call, which concluded with an agreement that there needed to be a response 'to uphold the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons'. American officials took urine and blood samples from the victims of the Douma attack, where traces of chlorine of found, supporting France's claim that it had 'proof'. Russian experts, on the other hand, investigated the site for themselves and found no evidence that a chemical attack had taken place. This didn't deter Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson from announcing that 'Russia must not yet again try to obstruct these investigations', and that 'those responsible for the use of chemical weapons have lost all moral integrity and must be held to account'. The alleged use of Novichok nerve agent on former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skirpal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury last month has been classed as attempted murder on the part of Russian intelligence. It is no surprise that the UK would act in an aggressive manner, so much so that Theresa 'side-stepped' Parliament on the issue, authorising British involvement due to the need for quick and firm action.

On the warpath

The 'Commander-in-Tweet' himself, Mr Donald Trump, made his voice heard, taking to Twitter on 8 April and calling the attack 'mindless', highlighting the encircling of the 'area of atrocity' by the Syrian Army and 'making it completely inaccessible to outside world'. 'Animal Assad' now had a 'big price to pay' for causing 'another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!'. 3 days later, Russia's ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, referred to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and, in comments made to al-Manar TV, American missiles 'will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired'. This didn't scare POTUS though, returning to Twitter in order to tell Russia to 'get ready... [missiles] will be coming, nice and new and "smart"!'. Once again, Russia responded, with their ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzia announcing that the US would 'bear responsibility' for any 'illegal military adventure' undertaken. In true Trump fashion, the President didn't keep quiet, as on 12 April he tweeted of American success in the region against ISIS and that he never said an attack on Syria would take place -'could be very soon or not so soon at all!'. 

He's certainly changed his tune

In the early morning of 14 April, the United States, Britain and France launched strikes on government facilities suspected of creating chemical weapons, including a scientific research facility, a chemical weapons storage facility and a chemical weapons equipment storage site. The Syrian government called the strikes a 'flagrant violation of international law', as Russia's use of their veto on 10 April during a UN Security Council meeting, held due to assess the best way to respond to the suspected chemical attack. The three Western leaders were labelled 'criminals' by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, with Putin calling it an 'act of aggression' whilst his government called for an emergency meeting between the Security Council (only two other member nations, Bolivia and China, supported Russia's proposed resolution to condemn the airstrikes). Theresa claimed that there was 'no practicable alternative to the use of force', with Trump,once more on Twitter, saying that it was 'a perfectly executed strike'. He finished with the dangerous words displayed on a banner behind George W. Bush when he spoke on the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003- 'Mission Accomplished'. 

Hindsight is a glorious thing

The war of words that have been waged over the last week or so (perhaps more if you take into account the events that occurred in Salisbury or even the first time that Donald Trump realised you can speak your mind in 160 characters or less) can be analysed in so many ways. Much like Chairman Corbyn, we can question the legality of the strikes, as the US, Britain and France did not receive the go ahead from the UN to destroy the sites. Indeed, Parliament was not asked about whether to proceed with the strikes, even though the PM has the right to authorise military action on behalf of the Crown. This didn't stop the Chairman writing to Theresa and voicing his disappointment that 'Parliament should have been consulted', and sticking to his guns on demanding conclusive evidence that it was Russia who were behind the Skirpal poisonings last month. Even though these are reasonable demands, don't be surprised if The Sun resume their campaign of outing Jeremy Corbyn, former spy for Czechoslovakia.

Civil war in Syria is yet another dark chapter in the history of the Middle East, as the region has already been the subject of numerous religious wars between Christians, Muslims and Jews. An escalation in hostilities will not bring about the peace that everyone craves, and just adds to the miserable situation that region finds itself in. Tensions were already high enough since Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the recent strikes on Syria's supposed chemical weapon facilities will not allow Syria's neighbours to rest easily. Much like the legality of the strikes themselves, the latest development in this already delicate region can be put under the microscope, as past conflicts can be brought into the fold and, through ramblings and mildly disjointed thoughts, a more peaceful resolution can be put forward. They would certainly not be on par with the Camp David Accords of 1978, but one can try and think positively when it comes to peace.

All smiles... for now

The apparent ineptitude of the United Nations can also be evaluated, as their failure to deter the Three Musketeers of May, Trump and Macron from authorising missile strikes can surely be seen as a defeat for the UN in their pursuit to maintain 'world peace'. Constant vetoes dramatically slow down the process of democracy, as they use them only to put up a diplomatic middle finger to their international rivals and hinder their wider global goals. With the UN already known to have failed over issues such as the Rwandan genocide in 1994 or the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian War (1992-1995) in 1995, the seemingly defiant behaviour of 3 permanent members on the Security Council shows the apparent inability to keep factions from rising within this international organisation. Moreover, with another member of the Security Council threatening further escalation, it appears that the divide between the permanent members may threaten to further stall diplomacy from taking place.

While the three proposals are relevant in terms of discussing the strikes by the three Western powers, it won't be the focus today (sorry to disappoint you if you came here for some legal discussion or to see how good my Jimmy Carter impression was). The title and the quote by George H.W. Bush will surely have given away the tone of this particular post; that is, the 'return' of the Cold War. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it can be defined as the period of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union after the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945, or since the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 due to the emergence of the world's first communist state. We won't get bogged down in a debate on the year that the Cold War began, but it is safe to say that, even though the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, the successor to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Russian Federation, is not as dramatic a change as some first thought.

There's only one Lenin though 

António Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN (no, it doesn't mean he dresses as a general wearing half moon glasses with his hair tied in a bun), declared that the Cold War was 'back with a vengeance' on 13 April. While 'Cold War: Back With A Vengeance' sounds like a Steven Seagal film, the Secretary-General's comments are not to be ignored. For the man entrusted with being the moderator between the nations of the world to declare that the most threatening period of tension in the whole of human history had returned, it shows the precarious situation our planet now finds itself in. On the same day as POTUS tweeted that the 'smart' missiles were coming (11 April), he then tweeted a few hours later about how relations with Russia had deteriorated to its lowest point, 'and that includes the Cold War'. His tweet finished with a plea to 'stop the arms race?', ironically only hours after threatening Russia about how America's big, shiny missiles were about to bring down the 'Gas Killing Animal' al-Assad.

The term 'Cold War' is being thrown around a lot lately, and its usage is justified. Syria is just the latest flashpoint in the epic saga that is the Cold War, taking the eyes of the powers that be away from North Korea and towards this war-torn Middle Eastern state. Civil war in Syria, at the moment, is still a 'proxy war' (two opposing nations/coalitions support combatants in order to further their interests in the region), and follows in a similar vein to Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1953-1974) and Afghanistan (1979-1989), three prominent examples of 'proxy wars' fought during the second half of the 20th century. Yet Russia has conducted operations in Syria since September 2015, and a US-led coalition has targeted ISIS strongholds in Syria since September 2014, showing how this particular conflict could easily spill over into something far more destructive.

Sukhoi Su-57 fighters- I'm not scared!

Thankfully, these are the ravings of a mad man. While the two sides have accused each other of staging chemical attacks or poisoning a former Russian military intelligence officer, neither side wants a war. Russia is not the global superpower it once was; the ideology it once stood for was the rallying point to resistance/protest movements across the globe, such as the student protests in Paris during the events of  'May 68'. North Korea and North Vietnam looked to both the Soviet Union and China for support in their struggle against their capitalist foes, but Russia is now just a mediocre nation armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons led by a man who many see as a 'dictator'. If you're concerned with his recent election victory on 18 March 2018 (my birthday, no less), then fear not, because according to the Russian Constitution, every President serves a 6 year term and cannot stand for re-election after a third consecutive term. Putin first served as President between 2000-2008 (when it used to be 4 years- it was changed in 2008), so technically he is now serving his fourth, but also second consecutive term, so is protected by the Constitution. Actually, come to think of it, it does sound like something a dictator would do...

The fact that neither side are committed to fighting a full-scale war certainly adds weight to the argument that the Cold War has begun to resurface. This is, however, an evolution of the 'conflict'; once it was the ultimate showdown between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, and now it is about the tensions between the United States and Russia, the two belligerents of the Cold War. The United States became involved in wars in order to stop communism from spreading, with President Dwight D. Eisenhower referring to 'domino theory' in 1954, which describes how the fall of one regime to communism encouraged other neighbouring nations to follow suit. On the other side, the Soviet Union supported the rise of communist insurgents, determined to back their like-minded allies in order to spread the concept of a 'worldwide revolution'. Both of their tenacity to withhold these principles led to destructive conflicts, one of which involved the use by the Americans of 'Agent Orange' (seems ironic for the US to condemn the use of chemical weapons,doesn't it?). Nowadays, American and Russian foreign policy is not too dramatically different, as both sides engage in a complicated and deadly dance to weaken each other's influence in every region across the globe.

The Vietnam War; just one example of 'containing' communism

Not only did the Cold War (apparently) emerge from the aftermath of the Second World War (1939-1945), but it was also the birth of the 'Special Relationship' between Britain and the United States. Although roots began in the middle of the 19th century, it was the common bond of sacrifice after the First World War (1914-1918) that helped to bring the two nations closer together. Prime Minister Winston Churchill commonly mentioned that 'Britain and the United States [were] joined in a special relationship', and he enjoyed a friendly relationship with President Franklin D. Roosevelt that helped to solidify the emerging friendship between the two nations. Some events threatened to derail relations, such as the Suez Crisis (1956), yet strong friendships that emerged between leaders, namely Margaret 'Hands off the Falklands' Thatcher and Ronald 'Bedtime for Bonzo' Reagan, meant that the alliance flourished into the new millennium. Tony Blair's determination to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with George W. Bush and 'our American friends' in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks was admirable, yet it dragged the UK into the Middle East. The Iraq Inquiry that began in 2009 concluded with 'damning' evidence that the Blair administration had made 'exaggerated claims about threats to Britain's national security'. The memories of Iraq and Afghanistan are still established in the minds of the populace, and more bloodshed over the Middle East would just be another headache for the Conservatives.

The 'special relationship' has been mentioned due to its prominence in the dealings between May and Trump. In the aftermath of Brexit, President Barack Obama had put the UK at 'the back of the queue' for US trade talks, which was reversed when Trump took power in 2017. UK nationals have reacted with hostility due to May and Trump's relationship, not just because Donald has made some pretty risque comments, but also because of fears that the seemingly deranged POTUS could start a new international conflict and drag us in with it. Jeremy Corbyn highlighted these concerns in his letter to the PM, writing that 'the UK prime minister is accountable to Parliament, not to the whims of a US President'. His comments are, more or less, correct, as the UK has been the plucky sidekick to the US since they emerged as a global superpower after the Second World War and overtook the declining imperial power. Britain's reliance on the US was vastly demonstrated with the Suez Crisis, as Eisenhower berated the UK in the UN and threatened economic sanctions, eventually leading to the fall of PM Anthony Eden in 1957. With Brexit continuing to be a right ball ache, reliance on the Americans seems more necessary than ever- once again, another key part of the 'special relationship' developed during the Cold War, and remains to this day.

They certainly aren't on the level of Thatcher and Reagan

As of 16 April, Theresa May would have to face Parliament over actions in Syria, and is sure to come under fire from Corbyn, with his view that 'bombs won't save lives or bring about peace'. Legality will surely be brought up, and it would be wise now to bring in the United Nations. Article 27 of the UN Charter grants the permanent members of the Security Council a vote, and over 'substantive' issues any nation has the right to prevent draft resolution on these kinds of issues coming into effect i.e. they can veto it. The Soviets cast 56 vetoes before another member, China, used theirs in 1955 over the issue of admitting Mongolia into the UN. Soviet vetoes had been used over the admittance of states friendly towards the USA, as the Americans weren't keen in allowing all Soviet member states to join. The Soviets have also used their veto when other nations have raised concerns about situations within the Soviet Union, such as the Hungarian Uprising (1956), the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) and the Soviet-Afghan War. In more recent years, Russia has used its veto over conflicts in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria; conflicts that they had/have vested interests in.

The Soviets/Russians aren't the only ones to have thrown around their veto to suit their own interests. Both Britain and France used their vetos for the first time in 1956 over the ongoing Suez Crisis, and the USA entered the veto scene in 1970 with the Rhodesian Bush War (1964-1979) splitting the country asunder, as Zimbabwean rebel groups fought for their independence. It is over issues concerning Israel where the United States have exercised their veto powers, casting one in 1972 after Israel launched air strikes against Syria and Lebanon. The USA has used its veto a total of 43 times (by my calculations, at least) over matters concerning Israel, clearly showing their intention in defending the Jewish state against their Arab neighbours. 18 December 2017 was the most recent use of the American veto, this time over the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the resulting unrest in Palestine. As both the United States and Russia have clearly not abandoned their Cold War doctrine of protecting their own interests, it shows how the Cold War never truly left. The link may be tenuous, but a new Russia or 'Cold War winning' America, after 1991, would surely have changed their foreign policy.

Israel's military capability makes them a powerful force in the region

Besides foreign policy, a major component of the Cold War was the nuclear arms race between the two superpowers, and one that threatened to destroy society. Mistrust between the Allies grew as the Axis Powers faced their end in 1945, with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin blissfully unaware of the American's Manhattan Project until the Potsdam Conference between July-August 1945, where Truman humbly bragged that the USA had a new toy. Turns out the bushy moustached master of the Soviet Union was very much aware of the atomic bomb, thanks to informants within the project, such as Klaus Fuchs, passing on information. 6 August 1945 saw 'Little Boy' being dropped on Hiroshima, the first nuclear weapon to be used in open warfare, and a second bomb, 'Fat Man', unleashed upon Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. The world had stumbled into the atomic age, and the Soviets wanted in. By August 1949, the Soviets had the bomb, later developing their own hydrogen bomb in 1953 (a year after the USA had tested their own), and from then on things got a little crazy.

The launch of the satellite 'Sputnik' on 4 October 1957 not only kicked off the 'Space Race', but demonstrated to the West that they had the capability to launch long range missiles; missiles that could house a nuclear device. By 1960, the USA had 18,638 nuclear weapons stockpiled, compared to the USSR's 1605. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world close to the point of nuclear war, as the Soviet missiles stationed on Cuba were in range of the US mainland, leading to an American blockade and threats of destroying the missiles on Cuba. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) had been avoided, and now began a period of détente (French for 'relaxation') between the two superpowers. Treaties, such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), were the building blocks to protecting the world from MAD, with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement (SALT I) signed in 1972. Although there were intentions to limit nuclear capacity, this didn't stop the USSR possessing 37,000 nuclear weapons by 1990, with American stockpiles standing at 10,904. Well, détente was a good idea... in theory.

Not even MAD could stop the Soviets from showcasing their toys

Although both nations have cut down on their nuclear arsenals drastically, the arms race rages on. New missiles are being developed to fly further, move faster and just be deadlier in nature. Espionage between the two nations remains as well, with accusation surrounding Putin's interference in Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton back in the Presidential elections of 2016. Secret cameras and sneaking around in trench coats was how spying was done in the times of the Cold War, but now it is done through hacking and emails that may say 'Look at the dancing kitty' in the subject line, but actually details a new missile capable of annihilating the East Coast in one fateful strike. Militaries are now driven through robotics, with drones raining down hellfire from the skies, their pilots thousands of miles away. The Skirpal poisonings in Salisbury clearly shows that the Cold War mentality of espionage and intrigue still lives on to this day, yet has 'evolved' into something far more terrifying. The term 'arms race', especially when put in the same sentence as the Cold War, puts an image firmly in someone's mind of atomic explosions and missiles- when Trump sent out his tweet on '[stopping] the arms race', it clearly shows how even a series of treaties and fears of total destruction has never ruled out the possibility of using that deadly array of weapons to use.

It is, perhaps, worth noting of other various aspects of the Cold War that survived the fall of the Soviet Union. The state run doping programme has brought shame to Russia, yet falls in line with the Soviet ideal of promoting the strength of the communist system through glory on the sports field. This may have been an 'excuse' for cheating, but the lengths in which this goal was pursued is bewildering. Espionage is also still an issue, with the Skirpal example, the fears over tampering the outcome of the 2016 Presidential elections and the rise in cyber attacks confirming how there is still a clear war going on behind the scenes, waged between intelligence agencies determined to gain an advantage over their international rivals. That desire to triumph over the nations that are perceived to pose a threat to their own goals and ideals was rooted within the Cold War, and has survived to this day.

Looks like Mr Bond may need to spring back into action

The philosophers amongst us will look towards examples such as the Just War theory in weighing up the morality of the exploits of the Trump, May and Macron Triforce. While there is a 'just cause' behind attacking the chemical weapon plants due to the threat to innocent lives, this is by no means a 'last resort'. The cause is a noble one; no population should be the subject to chemical attacks, especially by their own government (even if they are in open revolt against them), but it does seem likely that this course of action was taken in order to show a united front against Russia. Much like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Donald Trump's vow of 'fire and fury' at the height of the North Korea crisis, the West are flexing their muscles in the face of the man that they see as one of the most dangerous world leaders of the modern age. With Putin tightening his grip on Russia through his election victory last month, and the Russian Federation being no stranger to interfering in its neighbours affairs (South Ossetia in 2008 or the annexation of the Crimea in 2014,to name but a few), it is no surprise that the Western leaders wake at night in a cold sweat, having had nightmares of Putin riding down the Mall on the back of a bear at the head of the victorious Russian army.

It very much appears that the Cold War, which had been somewhat frozen in time since the collapse of the USSR in December 1991, is thawing out fast. The 'conflict' may have adapted to the modern climate, but the situation in Syria shows how the tension between East and West has now returned to the forefront of international politics. With the frosty relations melting faster than the polar ice caps, the plight of the polar bears swimming to safety might now be applied to those that will look beyond Syria in order to escape this new point of interest between the spheres of Russia and their Western counterparts. The noble cause of protecting innocent civilians from danger will surely be put to the test as the new stage of the Cold War, this ideological battle that has been waging all this time, is set in motion.

Ben G 😁 xo

P.S. The post I published last week on my ordeal was met with overwhelming support. Not only was it my most read post so far, but the comments from people really moved me. I am lost for words.

The look of a man who can't quite believe that so many people would care :) x

P.P.S. Saturday saw an incredible comeback staged as Farnham triumphed over Teddington to reach the cup final. After playing for 25 minutes and limping off with an ankle niggle, I'm a shoe in for Sports Personality of the Year for.

Athlete