By
Sajjad Shaukat
War-like situation has
been created between Russia and Turkey after the latter shot down a Russian
fighter jet, Su-24 combat aircraft, near the Syrian border on Tuesday.
Stand of Ankara is that
before shooting it down, it issued repeated warnings that the plane was in its
airspace. Moscow said that aircraft was shot down over the territory of Syria
by an air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16 jet. It fell in Syrian territory,
bordering Turkey. One of the pilots, who survived stated that no warning was given.
Russian President
Vladimir Putin who had called the incident, “a stab in the back” said on
Thursday that the United States knew the time and flight path of a Russian jet,
and should have informed Turkey, its coalition ally. The US has an agreement
with Russia to avoid aircraft collisions over Syria where both countries are
conducting bombing campaigns.
Putin also said, “If it
was an American aircraft, would they have struck...what we hear instead is they
have nothing to apologize for…no promise to punish the culprits of this
crime…it was not possible for Turkey not to have known that the plane was
Russian, as suggested by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
On the other side,
Turkish President Erdogan said that his country would not apologize for downing
the jet, and “those who violated our airspace are the ones who need to
apologize.”
Russia’s Defense
Ministry announced that it had suspended all “channels of interaction” with
Turkey’s military, including a hotline set up to avoid clashes in Syrian
airspace.
Earlier, Russia
announced the sending S-400 missile system to Syria’s Latakia province which
borders Turkey. In response, Turkey reportedly sent 20 tanks to its border in
wake of Russia’s airstrikes on the ISIS (Daesh) terrorists.
In this regard, Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov criticized NATO for failing to express condolences to
Russia over the incident, after a NATO meeting called by the Turks. He
elaborated that similar reaction came from the European Union.
Here question also
arises that major NATO countries which called on Ankara and Moscow to show
restraint and to resolve the issue through negotiations or by utilizing
diplomatic channels will join its NATO member Turkey in case of Russian
prospective military action.
Particularly, American
President Barrack Obama who has always displayed contradictory approach by
following double game in relation to Syria and ISIS, said, “it was important
for the Russians and Turks to talk to each other and take measures to
discourage escalation…like every country, Turkey has the right to defend its
territory and its airspace.”
However, it seems that
assurance of NATO or especially of the US has emboldened Turkey to take strong
stand against Russia. But, despite Russian military action against Turkey, NATO
may not drag itself into conflict with Moscow which could result into nuclear
war.
It is notable that after
the World War II, nuclear weapons were never used, and were only employed as a
strategic threat. During the heightened days of the Cold War, many crises arose
in Suez Canal, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam when the US and the former Soviet Union
were willing to use atomic weapons, but they stopped because of the fear of
nuclear war which could eliminate both the super powers. Therefore, the two
rivals preferred to resolve their differences through diplomacy.
Similarly, many
occasions came between Pakistan and India, during the Kargil crisis, Indian
parliament’s attack by the militants, and particularly in 2008, in the
post-Mumbai terror attacks when New Delhi started a blame game against
Islamabad in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of
troops. Pakistan had also taken defensive steps to meet any prospective
aggression or surgical strikes by New Delhi. But, India failed in implementing
its aggressive plans, because Islamabad also possesses atomic weapons. Despite
it, fear of atomic war continues between both the countries, as Indian Prime
Minister and leader of the ruling fundamentalist party BJP Narendra Modi
intended to implement the doctrine of limited war or conventional war with
Pakistan in relation to the Indian-held Kashmir which remains the nuclear
flashpoint.
Political strategists
agree that principle of deterrence also known as ‘balance of terror’ is a
psychological concept which aims to affect an opponent’s perceptions. In
nuclear deterrence, weapons are less usable, as their threat is enough in
deterring an enemy who intends to use its armed might.
In this context, a
renowned scholar, Hotzendorf remarks that nuclear force best serves the
interests of a state when it deters an attack.
It is of particular
attention that on July 31, 2006, the US declassified documents disclosed,
“During the past year, the Bush White House was seriously considering a
“nuclear option” against Iranian nuclear sites understandably…these scenarios
are not without historical precedent. From time to time during the Cold War and
after, American officials tried to find ways of making nuclear weapons usable,
not only for deterrence against Soviet attack but as “tactical” weapons in
local conflicts…recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M.
Nixon’s first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing
to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam.”
A complete study of the
declassified documents show that President Nixon’s national security adviser
Henry Kissinger who believes in power or use of force including nuclear threat
for bringing the adversary to favourable bargaining, had advised Nixon to
use atomic weapons or its threat to compel North Vietnam and its Soviet allies
to conclude peace on America’s terms.
Notably, in 2013, The US
was determined to attack Syria, when it accused Syrian government of using
chemical weapons on the rebels. America’s Navy was expanded in the
Mediterranean. On the other side, Russia which also sent its warships, made it
clear that CIA-supported rebels used chemical weapons. A war-like situation
arose between both the countries, but defused when America’s allies interfered
and President Obama had to withdraw from his illogical stand.
In this respect,
Huntington’s book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order” which points out “the clash of civilizations” as the “battle lines of
the future…the next world war” also indicates (In one way or the other) that
any fault-line war could involve the major powers.
Nevertheless, even if,
the present Russia-Turkey crisis is being resolved by the mediatory efforts of
the big countries (Whatever the situation in the coming days), the clouds of
nuclear war will keep on hovering, unless the real issue of Syria is settled.
As a matter of fact,
since the Russian President Vladimir Putin has exposed the secret aims of the
US fake global war on terror by striking the strongholds of ISIS in the
northern Syria and support of CIA and Israeli Mossad to the ISIS terrorists,
President Obama is confused.
Hence, President Obama who had agreed to keep the Syrian President
Assad in power (Contrary to previous demand of regime change) and not to allow
ISIS militants group to reign in Syria has backed out from his stand. Recently,
he stated, “The U.S. won’t in any circumstances agree to a political settlement
for the civil war in Syria that leaves Assad in power…there is no way to unite
the country’s various factions for the fight against Islamic State.”
It is noteworthy that on Thursday, in a joint press conference in
Moscow, President Putin and French President Francois Hollande said that they
agreed to exchange intelligence data on ISIS and other terror groups in Syria
to increase the effectiveness of their air campaigns to target only Islamic
State and similar Jihadi groups. Hollande who also stressed the importance of
Moscow, playing a key role in the political transition in Syria reiterated the
Western position that Syria’s President Assad should have no place in the
country’s future. Putin again spoke about the need for a broad international
coalition against terrorism, but clarified that “Russia is ready to act on its
own if the idea does not receive wider support from the West.”
But, analysts still
hopes that a global alliance could emerge to root out ISIS in that region. In
case, it does not take origin, Paris could continue its air campaign on ISIS
militants and may join Russian coalition; afterwards, even America’s Western
allies may also join it, while playing a reconciliatory between the US and Russia
for a larger alliance.
In fact, in the
post-November 13 phenomena of Paris terror attacks, France and other European
countries want a broader alliance including Russia to eliminate ISIS in Syria
and Iraq. But, the US which had backed the ISIS militants, and now, assist the
moderate terrorists (Rebels) is using delaying tactics, because other major
countries will also want to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Tel
Aviv would not agree except employing similar tactics which thwarted previous
peace-processes.
In this connection, the
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s statement, hours after the Paris
attacks caused a stir in Jerusalem, as she said that “to
counteract the radicalization, we must go back to the situation in the Middle East
of which not the least the Palestinians see that there is no future: we must
either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”
It is also noteworthy
that by manipulating the tension between Moscow and Ankara and vicious circle
of terrorism in Syria, Israel could cause a conventional war between the
sovereign states, which could culminate into nuclear war, enveloping the big
powers.
Nonetheless, unless
resolved, like Kashmir, Syria will remain the nuclear flashpoint. Therefore, it
is suggested that major atomic powers must act upon the principles of ‘balance
of terror’ to avoid any atomic conflict which could culminate into
international suicide in wake of drastic phenomena of the aftermath of Paris
terror attacks. They must settle both the Russia-Turkey dispute and the Syrian
crisis through talks.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on
international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
Email: sajjad_logic_pak@hotmail.com
Courtesy Veterans Today
No comments:
Post a Comment