Hitting Syria Over Khan Sheikhoun – A Most Unwise Move

by Eze Eluchie,

With critical campaign promises in the area of Health Care Reforms and banning Muslims from coming to the United States being declared dead-on-arrival, key appointees and allies having to be demoted or step down from sensitive positions, increasing civilian fatalities from operations in Mosul, and growing apprehension regarding the continuing investigations into Russian interference in the US 2016 Presidential elections, the Donald Trump led government in the US would give a leg-and-an-arm for whatsoever that will divert attention from its domestic woes.

Desperate for a distraction, a chemical weapon attack on Khan Sheikhoun, Syria, the perpetrators of which had not yet been ascertained by any one, looked and proved too good to forgo as a ruse to distract Americans from a Trump presidency that was becoming a fiasco. Clearly without thinking the implications through, the US administration jumped at the opportunity provided by the images of several victims of the chemical weapon attack in Khan Sheikhoun splashed across television screens globally, and ordered the bombardment of a Syrian Airbase as ‘punishment’ for the chemical weapon attack earlier in the week - ostensibly as a ploy to divert public attention from falling ratings of the President in the US.

When one realizes that independent investigations by United Nations experts had been inconclusive as to who between the Government and rebel forces had deployed and unleashed previous chemical weapon attacks in the Syrian war, and that some of the rebel forces had been established to have the capacity to produce and stock chemical weapons (ISIS had routinely released chemical weapons against Iraqi forces in the ongoing efforts to liberate Mosul and other terror-held territories), it becomes plausible that by its over-hasty reaction, the US has rendered its enormous might as a tool that can easily be instigated by rebel forces and terror elements by the mere release of a chemical weapon attack. To rebel forces and terror elements who have routinely used civilians as human shields and to whom suicide bombing is an acceptable war strategy, there would be no qualms whatsoever in unleashing a chemical weapon attack in rebel held areas, kill a couple of civilians and gain additional US airstrikes and increased involvement in the Syrian war against the Syrian government.

The immediate message the US bombardment sends to the ‘moderate extremists’ and terror elements engaged in battle against the Assad government in Syria is that; if you want to get United States involved in the war against Syria, unleash chemical weapon attacks anywhere in Syria. As a direct consequence of the US reaction, it is now expected that more horrific chemical weapon attacks will be conducted by the rebels/moderate extremists/terror elements against whom the Syrian government has been engaged in combat over the past more than 6 years.  Chemical weapons will be deployed with greater frequency in the hope of attracting more US airstrikes against the Syrian government.

And what happens if a US airstrike in Syria hits one of the several Russian Air and military installations in Syria?

Considering the policy reversal (within a spate of less than one week from when President Trump had announced that regime change would not be the foundation of US interests in Syria) which the bombardment of the Syrian Airbase symbolizes, and the likelihood of similar rash reactions to other flashpoints across the world where the countries concerned have the potential to strike back, particularly the North Korea situation, possible skirmishes in the South China Seas, and possible confrontation with Iran over diverse issues, one can conclude that  with a President Donald Trump in power, the world has never been closer, since the end of WWII to a conflict where the possibilities of deploying weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear and chemical weapons).

Technically speaking, the attacks against Syria are in addition to being in violation of International laws, also a violation of domestic United States statutes. There has been no pretence of or allegations that the Syrian government had in any way attacked or posed a threat to US interests, thus the mere unsubstantiated allegations that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks in Khan Sheikhoun can not serve as justification for the US to unleash an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign state. At the domestic level, the 'War Powers Resolution' expressly any US President to secure congressional approval prior to launching any military attack on any country that has not attacked the US. No such congressional approval was sought or given in this instance, making the attacks on Syria earlier today unlawful under US laws. .

More and better thinking caps are needed in the White House with regards to dealing with foreign policy issues before the world is thrown into needless apocalyptic conflagrations.

Picture: One of the 59 Tomahawk missiles launched against the Syrian airbase  

Interference In 2016 US Presidential Elections – Did Russia Overreach Itself?

by Eze Eluchie, 

In the period leading to the 2016 US Presidential elections, the preference of the Russian federation as to who should occupy the Oval Office was no secret. Even the two major candidates in the US presidential elections were quite aware of this and acted accordingly with the Democratic Party’s candidate, Hilary Clinton, promising to get ‘tougher’ in her dealings with Russia and apply more sanctions against Russia; whilst her Republican opponent, and now President, Donald Trump, at times to the chagrin of other Republican Party members, expressed open respect for and desire for increased friendship with the Russian leader and increased collaboration and cooperation with between the US and Russia to address such issues as Islamist extremism and cyber warfare.

Considering the stature and influence wielded by whosoever occupies the Oval Office, interest in who amongst the two main contenders would clinch the plum job was universal. With many European leaders who were sceptical of what an unknown and erratic Donald Trump with his public support for nationalistic sentiments across Europe, a dismantling of the European Union and open declarations of the worthlessness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), would portend, openly rooting for a Clinton victory; Euroskeptics and nationalist elements across Europe were clearly, alongside several analysts and stakeholders across sub-Sahara Africa worried about the emergence of a President in the United States who, like then incumbent President Obama, was shy of confronting extremist Islamists, pro-refugees and had too close a relationship with Sunni Arab states with their extremist brand of Islam.

Unlike previous US presidential elections when much of the world looked on as spectators awaiting whatsoever the decision of the American electorate would be, several external forces simply felt there was just too much at stake to leave the onerous task of selecting the 45^th POTUS to only the  electorate in the United States. Most Americans will cringe in consternation at the immediate past sentence, but that’s the trite reality that engulfed the world as the 2016 US presidential elections approached.

European leaders in Paris, Berlin, London and virtually all major EU governments, did all they could to shore up their preferred US Presidential candidate’s chances at the polls: public statements of support from diverse quarters; subtle dire warnings targeted to the US electorate as likely outcomes in the event that Donald Trump emerged victorious; and at times outright expression of support for Hilary Clinton. On his part, the Russian leader, Vladmir Putin, with his trademark sly smirk adorning his face, maintained and severally restated Russia’s indifference to whosoever emerged as President in the US presidential elections.      

The difference in the stance and reactions  of European Governments and the Russian leadership was that whilst the European governments were headed by career politicians who had inhibitions of the likely consequences to themselves and their country’s of interfering in the US presidential elections, the Russian leader was not a career politician, but rather a former Spy master, former senior operative of the KGB and thus a master of the science and art of sleuth, who had absolutely nothing to lose (considering that virtually every sanction possible had already been imposed on Russia by Western powers on account of the Crimea crisis) in the event that Russian interference in US elections was discovered and everything to gain, in having a ‘grateful’ ally in the White House.

The reality now is that by very suave, strategic and deft deployment of cyber-warfare, espionage, information (and disinformation) dissemination, and good old personal contacts and outreach, the Russians impacted and influenced the 2016 US presidential elections, successfully ensuring that Russia’s preferred candidate, Donald Trump, emerged as the 45^th President of the United States. As the old saying goes, the rest is history.

Buoyed on by it’s success in the US elections, Russia is becoming more frontal and brazen with her support for candidates in elections in major European democracies. The recent visit to the Kremlin and a meeting with the Russian leader by the leading candidate in the forthcoming April 2017 French Presidential elections, Maria le Pen, was not only unprecedented but clearly care-free as to whatsoever interpretations such endorsement of a foreign presidential aspirant may generate in the mind of French voters.  

As the US authorities wake up to the realization that they have been had, that there is likely to be a repeat of a ‘Mikhail Gorbachev’ episode in the US, that the democratic structures and system instituted by their founding fathers and upon which they have been perfecting for over two hundred years now, has been compromised, infiltrated and probably ridiculed, there will be consequences. Consequences that will make the Russians, who are currently basking in the privacy of the inner sanctuaries of the Kremlin on the euphoria of having installed ‘their man’ in the White House wonder if they had gone too far, if they should simply have stopped at discrediting a perceived foe and still left the final choice to the American electorate rather than go all the way to ensuring who occupies the Oval Office.

Picture: Russian President, Vladmir Putin. 

Erdogan Bares His Fangs on Europe.

by Eze Eluchie,

When the survival of an individual becomes the fulcrum of a country’s foreign policy, such country’s foreign policy and interests become tumultuous and oddities become the norm. The foregoing statement fully captures the situation of Turkey under Tayyip Erdogan.

At a time ‘the sovereign’ felt that Islamic State terrorists will help him decimate his sworn enemies (the Kurds), he conveniently turns the other way as ISIS descended on Kobani right on the Turkish border, at times chipping in some support to the terrorists in the form of free-passage of aspiring terrorists and provision of slush funds in the form of payment for ‘blood crude oil’; and when that ploy fails, he without any qualms, makes a 180 degree turn-around, develops a sudden phobia for ISIS, invades portions of Syria, under the guise of ensuring that ISIS is kept far away from Turkish borders.

Under different circumstances when ‘the sovereign’ again felt like drawing NATO into the Syrian war against Russian forces to ensure that whatsoever efforts being made to defeat ISIS and stabilize and sustain the Al Bashir regime failed, there was no hesitation in gunning down a Russian military jet, in the process killing some Russian airmen. The West saw through the scam and refused to be dragged into a conflict they were least prepared for. ‘The sovereign’ responded with some public grandstanding whilst in private reaching out to appease the Russians; On the converse, when it was clear that Western leaders tacitly hoped for the success of the 2016 coup in Turkey, there was no hesitation in ‘the sovereign’ grovelling back to Moscow, to create a semblance of rapprochement with the Russian leader, who certainly had not forgotten how 2 of his airmen were wasted whilst in Syrian airspace.

As ‘the sovereign’ now prepares to bamboozle his countrymen, via a referendum scheduled for April 2017, to hand over Turkish sovereignty to his personal whims and caprices, nothing is being spared, inclusive of vulgar abuses to Turkey’s allies in NATO, deprecating erstwhile friendly states in Europe, rubbishing any hopes of Turkey joining the European Union in the near future and infantile threats against equally endowed states in Europe (particularly The Netherlands and Germany).  It is clear that in the view of ‘the sovereign’, no cost is too great for Turkey to bear in the pursuit of ‘the sovereign’s’ self-aggrandizement.

Predictably, as he did with efforts at making peace with Russia after the murder of 2 Russian military pilots deliberately and provocatively shot down over Syrian airspace, it can be expected that Turkey’s sovereign, Tayyip Erdogan, will soon after he has succeeded in badgering his fellow Turks into surrendering their sovereignty to him (Erdogan) in the April referendum, embark upon ‘fence-mending’ visits to The Netherlands and other European countries, countries ‘the sovereign’ is currently taking personal delight in castigating – urging European countries, who appear to be eternally mesmerized by his Othoman-charm and a near-fatalistic desire to retain Turkeys within the NATO fold to have access to her strategic geographical position for military purposes.

Has anyone bothered to wonder why, of the 3 countries which denied Erdogan’s appointees access to address political rallies on their soil (Germany, Austria and The Netherlands), The Netherlands is the current recipient of ‘the sovereigns’ verbal assaults? Well, the Dutch are having election first, today, to be exact. What better way to influence the outcomes of Dutch elections and the Turkish referendum than to stir up a spat that will stoke up ethnic/nationalistic fervour. Focus will subsequently be shifted to other western Euroean countries as their respective elections draw near.

As they ponder ways to tackle their new nightmare, one thought that will continue to plague European leaders as they roll on their lonely beds in Presidential palaces, be it in Den Hague, Berlin, Paris or wheresoever, is  was there anything they could have done to differently on the 15^th July 2016? Is there something that can be done to prevent the descent of Turkey into a dictatorship with the capacity to threaten European peace and stability?

Clearly, the times have changed. Unlike in the past when it was the sole preserve of Western countries to influence and determine the outcomes of elections in other parts of the world, elections in the West, hitherto, was purely an internal affair of the individual country concerned, are now routinely influenced by external forces. The US elections were successfully influenced by Russia; the Dutch election holding today is being influenced by Turkeys sovereign. Who will influence the forthcoming French and German elections scheduled for later in the year?

Picture: Turkeys sovereign, Tayyip Erdogan.