Trump’s Naïve Approach in Syria

By Fahed Khitan

تم نشره في Sun 18 December / Dec 2016. 01:00 AM - آخر تعديل في Sun 18 December / Dec 2016. 10:53 PM
  • Fahed Khitan


Donald Trump is clear; his policies and administration will not derail from the tracks of his elections programme, if it were at all a “programme”. Whatever time he can afford outside of his dedication to “rebuild” his country, Trump stated two days ago, he will put into foreign affairs. Even the man Trump chose for the administration of foreign relations and policies happens to be one businessman known for having secured many deals that were majorly beneficial to the US economy.


Trump’s approach, however, in Syria is vacant. He cares not about the resolution of the Syrian crisis. His promises to the Syrian people do not exceed the charity of tents, blankets, medication, and food for the millions of refugees and dislocated Syrians, in safe zones he plans to secure with Arab Gulf funds.


With such condescendence, Trump states, and makes promises; to be financed by others, mind you, as though the Syrians’ fate is already concluded; that they will endure years to come in the “safety” of camps under US air protection, which by the way was not explicitly mentioned. Perhaps Trump was hoping the Khaligi (Gulf State) folk would cover its expenses!


Not for a moment, did Trump even stop to wonder if trial struck Gulf states, already immersed in their economic crises, would be willing to extend their funds to finance refugee camps. Nor did he bat an eye thinking of the Syrians and whether or not they were really ready to spend their upcoming years in camps!


This is not reflective of political awareness; it would only raise chaos and complicate the already catastrophic situation.


Still, the real problem lies in that Trump seems to be convinced what he says is actually applicable politics, and that it can be realised without any resistance by local players in the Syrian playground or other powers involved.


Safe zones in Syria, without the constitution of a fundamental —political of course— solution for the crisis would mean, naturally, the foundation of extremism-friendly pockets. For what else do we expect of people driven out of their homes into tents under the mercy of the International Community and their charity? What other hope do we have for the desperate hopeless? ISIS and ilk would as soon savour no effort to facilitate the transformation of distressed, frustrated masses into terrorist basecamps.


On the one hand, when the conflict in Syria was lighter than it is now, even then global powers were unable to enforce and execute the safe zone idea; the US even proposed and discussed it at first, then ruled it out. Turkey, likewise, endeavoured to impose the safe zones idea, failing to secure the NATO’s support, then turned to initiate a coordinated military incursion with Russia into the Syrian territory to pin the Kurds down and alleviate pressure on the internal frontier. So far, results in this discourse are humble, given the frequency to attacks striking at the heart of Turkey almost every day.


The totality of the International community; with all their organisations and money, were unable to meet the full requirements of humanitarian aid for refugees in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, while unable to reach tens of thousands of refugees in Rukban. More so, the conditions Syrians on the inside are enduring would suffice an example on the promised conditions under Donal Trump’s proposition, financed by Gulf benefactors.


Notably, this time Trump totally ignored Russia’s role in Syria, while up until yesterday, he was betting on cooperation with Putin, to let bygones be bygones. Trump’s approach is so naïve, as are his contradictory statements overnight!