Historic deal

Many around the world released a sigh of relief last week as the U.S. president Barack Obama reached a deal with Russian leader Vladimir Putin that would see Syria rid itself of chemical weapons—weapons that attack the nervous systems in humans and other animals, causing muscles to twitch uncontrollably. Victims typically die of suffocation—muscles they use to breathe are no longer in their control.

In exchange, the U.S. will not punish Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for killing an estimated 1,400 of his own people—400 of them children.

Many on both sides of the divided Congress, as well as those on Main Street U.S.A., cheered the news. Americans are weary of acting as the world’s policemen. Britain had already said it wasn’t going to intervene. France was wavering and Germany was never interested.

Just days earlier, Obama had laid out the stark choices for the United States and the rest of the world: “look away or accept moral duty.” He described for a uninterested nation the “murder of men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children.”

But in the intervening days, Putin helpfully showed Obama a third path—an escape hatch he speedily accepted. To underline the shift in world order he had engineered, Putin penned an Op Ed piece in the New York Times late last week scolding the Americans and their leaders for their arrogance for believing they could sort out messes in other countries with so many challenges of their own.

The consensus among the talking heads on Sunday morning was that Obama had stumbled awkwardly, but landed in the right place. That, yes, the U.S. looked weaker and its position on the world stage had been diminished. But most agreed there are no good sides in Syria and that there is no good outcome available. After all, most concluded that what is going on in Syria is a civil war that will only be sorted out by its own people—albeit a domestic conflict in which the West funnels weapons and resources through the back door while Russia ships them in the front door.

In absence of a clear and defined strategic goal, the U.S. should stay out, reasoned many.

I pray they are right.

But still, I can’t help but wonder what might have happened had the world intervened more forcefully, more sturdily to contain another aggressor in 1937, 1938 or 1939. After years of depression and deprivation most folks were looking inward in the mid-30s—focusing all their energies on feeding their family and keeping a roof over their head. They weren’t inclined to worry about conflicts they didn’t understand in Asia and Europe.

Britain and France understood the little man in Germany might become a problem when, early in 1938, Hitler annexed Austria. Besieged Austrians begged Britain to intervene. Britain’s Neville Chamberlain, however, believed he could work with Hitler to make “Germany a stable partner in Europe”. He believed he could do the same with Mussolini’s Italy—who were venturing into Spain and north Africa. In April that year he reached a deal with Italy to slow down their acquisitive pace.

But by now Hitler was preparing to take part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. In a meeting in September, Hitler told Chamberlain he had no designs on the remainder of Czechoslovakia. With that assurance, Chamberlain advised the Czechs they were on their own. Chamberlain returned home to a jubilant welcome in London. In subsequent deal reached later that month in Munich, Chamberlain believed he had extracted a promise from Hitler that “our two people never go to war again.”

King George was among the throng to rejoice Chamberlain’s achievement proclaiming After the magnificent efforts of the Prime Minister in the cause of peace, it is my fervent hope that a new era of friendship and prosperity may be dawning among the peoples of the world.”

In March 1939, Hitler invaded deeper into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain cried foul. In September, Germany invaded Poland. Warnings and ultimatums followed. But even after Britain declared war against Germany it dithered—standing by as Germany rolled into France, Belgium and Holland.

By the time World War II was finished five years later, more than 60 million people had been killed— about 2.5 per cent of the world’s population. The sheer scale of misery is beyond measure.

Would it have made a difference had the world stood up and punished Germany in 1938? If we had risen united against blatant aggression? Could we have avoided the senseless carnage and barbarity that is our recent past?

I fear we misread history when we pat ourselves on the back for looking away from human tragedy perpetrated by villains.

Europe of the’30s isn’t the Middle East of today.

And perhaps Bashar al-Assad lacks the imposing ambition of German or Japanese leaders of that era.

Yet when the U.S. struck its deal last week—a deal that will see Assad escape punishment for his horrific crimes—the world, in my view, became a little less safe. Not just for Syrians—but for everyone.

Meanwhile the shelling of rebel positions around Damascus has intensified in recent days. Rockets stamped with Russian symbols rain down upon folks who believed the West might help them.

We are busy at the moment, however, celebrating our deal.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca