結束敘利亞戰爭 Jeffrey Sachs

結束敘利亞戰爭

https://sandersinstitute.org/blog-ending-the-syrian-war

作者：Jeffrey Sachs 項目集團 / 2016 年 2 月 16 日

單幅圖像
照片：Arjenis Nunez / Wikimedia Commons
敘利亞是當前世界上最嚴重的人道主義災難和最危險的地緣政治熱點。 敘利亞人民陷入血戰，超過40萬人死亡，千萬人流離失所。

在外部支持者支持下的暴力聖戰組織無情地蹂躪這個國家並掠奪人民。 衝突各方 — — 巴沙爾·阿薩德總統政權、美國及其盟國支持的反阿薩德部隊以及伊斯蘭國 — — 都已經犯下了並將繼續犯下嚴重的戰爭罪行。

是時候拿出解決方案了。 但這樣的解決方案必須基於對戰爭根源的透明和現實的解釋。

年表如下。 2011年2月，在被稱為“阿拉伯之春”的地區性現象中，敘利亞主要城市爆發了和平抗議活動。 阿薩德政權的反應是暴力鎮壓（向示威者開槍）和提出改革。 很快，暴力事件升級。 阿薩德的反對者指責該政權毫無克製地對平民使用武力，而政府則指出士兵和警察的死亡是抗議者中存在暴力聖戰分子的證據。

看來早在2011年3月或4月，遜尼派反政權戰士和武器就開始從鄰國進入敘利亞。 許多目擊者的敘述都講述了外國聖戰分子對警察進行暴力襲擊的情況。 （然而，這些說法很難證實，尤其是在近五年之後。）

2011年春天，美國及其地區盟友試圖將阿薩德趕下台，認為他會像埃及的胡斯尼·穆巴拉克和突尼斯的紮因·阿比丁·本·阿裏一樣迅速下台。 許多觀察家聲稱，卡塔爾資助了敘利亞境內反政權活動的增加，並利用總部位於多哈的半島電視台來煽動全世界的反阿薩德情緒，盡管這種說法很難得到明確證實。

美國對該政權實施了更嚴格的貿易和金融製裁。 美國官方政策的風向標布魯金斯學會呼籲阿薩德下台，美國媒體反阿薩德的宣傳猛增。 （在此之前，阿薩德在美國媒體中被認為是一位相對溫和、盡管獨裁的統治者，時任國務卿希拉裏·克林頓直到 2011 年 3 月才指出，美國國會中的許多人將阿薩德視為改革者。）

戰爭的爆發可以追溯到2011年8月18日，當時美國總統奧巴馬和克林頓宣布“阿薩德必須下台”。 到目前為止，暴力事件仍然是可以控製的。 包括平民和戰鬥人員在內的總死亡人數可能達到 2,900 人左右（根據政權反對者的一項統計）。

8月之後，死亡率飆升。 有時有人聲稱美國此時沒有采取強有力的行動。 奧巴馬的政敵普遍攻擊他采取的行動太少，而不是太多。 但美國實際上確實采取了推翻阿薩德的行動，盡管主要是通過盟友秘密進行的，特別是沙特阿拉伯和土耳其（盡管這兩個國家都不需要太多的刺激來幹預）。 中央情報局和沙特阿拉伯秘密協調他們的行動。

當然，戰爭的時間順序並不能解釋這一點。 為此，我們需要檢查關鍵參與者的動機。 首先，敘利亞戰爭是一場代理人戰爭，主要涉及美國、俄羅斯、沙特、土耳其和伊朗。 美國及其盟友沙特阿拉伯和土耳其於2011年發動戰爭，以推翻阿薩德政權。 美國聯盟遭到了俄羅斯和伊朗不斷升級的反擊，其黎巴嫩代理軍隊真主黨正在與阿薩德政府並肩作戰。

美國推翻阿薩德政權的興趣恰恰在於其對伊朗和俄羅斯支持的依賴。 美國安全官員認為，推翻阿薩德將削弱伊朗，削弱真主黨，並削弱俄羅斯的地緣政治影響力。

美國的盟友，包括土耳其、沙特阿拉伯和卡塔爾，有興趣用遜尼派領導的政權（阿拉維派是什葉派伊斯蘭教的一個分支）取代敘利亞阿薩德的阿拉維派政權。 他們認為，這也會削弱他們的地區競爭對手伊朗，並更廣泛地削弱什葉派在中東的影響力。

美國 — — 並非第一次 — — 相信阿薩德會輕易被推翻，因此依賴於自己的宣傳。 該政權麵臨強烈的反對，但也得到了相當多的內部支持。 更重要的是，該政權擁有強大的盟友，特別是伊朗和俄羅斯。 認為兩人都不會回應的想法太天真了。

公眾應該認識到中央情報局領導的鬥爭的肮髒本質。 美國及其盟國向敘利亞派遣了大量遜尼派聖戰分子，就像美國在 20 世紀 80 年代向阿富汗派遣了遜尼派聖戰分子（聖戰者組織）（後來成為基地組織）一樣。 沙特,

拉比亞、土耳其、卡塔爾和美國經常支持一些最暴力的聖戰組織，他們憤世嫉俗地錯誤估計這些代理人會做肮髒的工作，然後以某種方式被推到一邊。

美國和歐洲主流媒體認為，俄羅斯對敘利亞的軍事幹預是危險的、擴張主義的。 事實是不同的。 《聯合國憲章》不允許美國組織聯盟、資助雇傭軍和走私重型武器來推翻別國政府。 在這種情況下，俄羅斯隻是做出反應，而不是采取行動。 它正在回應美國對其盟友的挑釁。

結束戰爭需要遵守六項原則。 首先，美國應停止公開和秘密推翻敘利亞政府的行動。 其次，聯合國安理會應落實正在談判的停火協議，呼籲美國、俄羅斯、沙特、土耳其、卡塔爾、伊朗等各國停止向敘利亞境內武裝和資助軍事力量。

第三，所有準軍事活動都應該停止，包括美國支持的所謂“溫和派”的活動。 第四，美國和俄羅斯 — — 實際上還有聯合國安理會 — — 應該讓敘利亞政府嚴格承擔責任，停止對政權反對者采取懲罰性行動。 第五，政治過渡應該在各方建立信任的情況下逐步進行，而不是通過任意、破壞穩定的急於“自由選舉”的方式進行。

最後，應敦促海灣國家、土耳其和伊朗就能夠確保持久和平的區域框架進行麵對麵談判。 阿拉伯人、土耳其人和伊朗人已經共同生活了數千年。 他們，而不是外部勢力，應該引領該地區的穩定秩序。

Ending The Syrian War

https://sandersinstitute.org/blog-ending-the-syrian-war

BY JEFFREY SACHS   PROJECT SYNDICATE / FEBRUARY 16, 2016

Photo: Arjenis Nunez / Wikimedia Commons

Syria is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe and most dangerous geopolitical hotspot. The Syrian people are caught in a bloodbath, with more than 400,000 dead and ten million displaced.

Violent jihadist groups backed by outside patrons mercilessly ravage the country and prey on the population. All parties to the conflict – President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the anti-Assad forces supported by the United States and its allies, and the Islamic State – have committed, and continue to commit, serious war crimes.

It is time for a solution. But such a solution must be based on a transparent and realistic account of what caused the war in the first place.

The chronology is as follows. In February 2011, peaceful protests were staged in Syria’s major cities, amid the region-wide phenomenon dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The Assad regime reacted with a shifting mix of violent repression (shooting at demonstrators) and offers of reform. Soon, the violence escalated. Assad’s opponents accused the regime of using force against civilians without restraint, while the government pointed to the deaths of soldiers and policeman as evidence of violent jihadists among the protestors.

It seems likely that as early as March or April 2011, Sunni anti-regime fighters and arms started to enter Syria from neighboring countries. Many eyewitness accounts tell of foreign jihadists engaging in violent attacks on policemen. (Such accounts are, however, hard to confirm, especially after almost five years.)

The US and its regional allies tried to nudge Assad from power in the spring of 2011, thinking that he would fall quickly like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Many observers assert that Qatar funded an increase in anti-regime activity within Syria and used the Doha-based broadcaster Al Jazeera to boost anti-Assad sentiment worldwide, though such claims are hard to pin down definitively.

The US imposed a tightening noose of trade and financial sanctions on the regime. The Brookings Institution, a bellwether of US official policy, called for Assad’s ouster, and anti-Assad propaganda in the US media soared. (Until then, Assad was considered in the US media to be a relatively benign, albeit authoritarian, ruler, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted as late as March 2011 that many in the US Congress regarded Assad as a reformer.)

The launch of the war can be dated to August 18, 2011, when President Barack Obama and Clinton declared that “Assad must go.” Up to that point, the violence was still containable. Total deaths, including both civilians and combatants, ran perhaps to around 2,900 (according to one tally by regime opponents).

After August, the death rate soared. It is sometimes claimed that the US did not act vigorously at this point. Obama’s political foes generally attack him for having taken too little action, not too much. But the US did in fact act to topple Assad, albeit mostly covertly and through allies, especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey (though neither country needed much prodding to intervene). The CIA and Saudi Arabia covertly coordinated their actions.

Of course, the chronology of the war does not explain it. For that, we need to examine the motivations of the key actors. First and foremost, the war in Syria is a proxy war, involving mainly the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. The US and its allies, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, started the war in 2011 in order to overthrow Assad’s regime. The US alliance was met with escalating counterforce by Russia and Iran, whose Lebanese proxy army Hezbollah is fighting alongside Assad’s government.

The US interest in overthrowing Assad’s regime was precisely its reliance on Iranian and Russian backing. Removing Assad, US security officials believed, would weaken Iran, undermine Hezbollah, and roll back Russia’s geopolitical reach.

America’s allies, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, were interested in replacing Assad’s Alawite regime in Syria with a Sunni-led regime (Alawites are a branch of Shia Islam). This, they believed, would also weaken their regional competitor, Iran, and curtail Shia influence in the Middle East more generally.

In believing that Assad would be easily overthrown, the US – not for the first time – was relying on its own propaganda. The regime faced deep opposition, but also had considerable internal support. More important, the regime had powerful allies, notably Iran and Russia. It was naive to believe that neither would respond.

The public should appreciate the dirty nature of the CIA-led fight. The US and its allies flooded Syria with Sunni jihadists, just as the US had flooded Afghanistan in the 1980s with Sunni jihadists (the Mujahideen) that later became Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the US have regularly backed some of the most violent jihadist groups in a cynical miscalculation that these proxies would do their dirty work and then somehow be pushed aside.

According to the US and European mainstream media, Russia’s military intervention in Syria is treacherous and expansionist. The truth is different. The US is not allowed under the UN Charter to organize an alliance, fund mercenaries, and smuggle heavy weapons to overthrow another country’s government. Russia in this case is reacting, not acting. It is responding to US provocations against its ally.

Ending the war requires adherence to six principles. First, the US should cease both overt and covert operations to overthrow Syria’s government. Second, the UN Security Council should implement the ceasefire now under negotiation, calling on all countries, including the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Iran, to stop arming and funding military forces within Syria.

Third, all paramilitary activities should cease, including those of so-called “moderates” backed by the US. Fourth, the US and Russia – and, indeed, the UN Security Council – should hold Syria’s government strictly responsible to desist from punitive actions against regime opponents. Fifth, the political transition should take place gradually and with confidence building on all sides, rather than through an arbitrary, destabilizing rush to “free elections.”

Finally, the Gulf States, Turkey, and Iran should be pressed to negotiate face to face on a regional framework that can ensure lasting peace. Arabs, Turks, and Iranians have all lived with each other for millennia. They, not the outside powers, should lead the way to a stable order in the region.