The Syria Template

October 16, 2019
A billboard in Damascus, Syria. January 3, 2008. Photo: Boudreaux and Andrea / Flickr
A billboard in Damascus, Syria. January 3, 2008. Photo: Boudreaux and Andrea / Flickr

The beleaguered nation of Syria—nearly wiped off the map by a decade of British geopolitical warfare executed by London and the Obama Administration; the cockpit of intended thermonuclear conflict between the United States and Russia; and ravaged by terrorism and bled white by millions of desperate refugees who fled for their lives—has in the last week become the centerpiece of an entirely new systemic world order based on sovereignty and development.

There are three principal reasons for this.

First: The nation and people of Syria resisted, refusing to be swallowed up by pessimism. There is a lesson to be learned here.

Second: U.S. President Donald Trump reversed decades of American submission to London’s policy of perpetual warfare, and on Oct. 9 announced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, and declared war against the “military-industrial complex” and the “intelligence agencies” that have wasted $8 trillion and lost “millions and millions of lives” attempting to defend their dying world order. He has repeated that policy commitment on two or three occasions since Oct. 9, facing down a tempest of intelligence warfare conducted through the Establishment media, even though “I’m sort of an island of one.” There is a lesson to be learned here, as well.

Third: Russian President Vladimir Putin was primarily responsible for turning the geopolitical tide in Syria by coming to the country’s aid in 2015, and launching a successful joint war against ISIS and other terrorists. On Oct. 3, speaking in Sochi at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club a full week before this week’s developments in Syria, President Putin took note of what has been achieved since 2015 and, looking forward, presented a farsighted proposal for the entire planet:

“We think the Syrian settlement can become a model for resolving regional crises where diplomatic mechanisms will be used in the vast majority of cases.... Now is the time for outside-the-box steps and actions.”

He continued: “We suggest that the accumulated prejudices and mutual pretenses must be pushed aside, and a security and cooperation organization be created in the region almost from scratch. In addition to Western countries, Russia, China, the U.S. the EU, India and other interested countries could join as observers.”

Putin then addressed the broader situation: “We have just heard this, that we have entered an era with no world order whatsoever.... Yes, such a scenario is indeed possible. But it is fraught with many threats.... This is why we cannot do without a systemic world order. But we also need both flexibility and, let me add, non-linearity ... which presupposes the ability to consider various cultural and value systems, the need to act together, dismissing stereotypes and geopolitical clichés. This is the only way to effectively solve the challenges on the global, regional, and national levels.”

Putin then went on to praise President Trump’s approach to the Korean Peninsula crisis. “We must give credit to President Trump’s courage and ability to take outside-the-box steps. Indeed, for many decades, U.S. presidents ignored the D.P.R.K. and saw it as an outcast. Mr. Trump was able to take a historic step....”

Echoing the thinking of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Putin then stated: “The time has come to talk in terms of a global ‘concert’ of development models, interests, cultures and traditions where the sound of each instrument is crucial, inextricable and valuable, and for the music to be played harmoniously rather than performed with discordant notes, a cacophony.”

Here too, there is a lesson to be learned.

Almost 20 years ago, at the time that the Oslo Accord between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization was signed in September 1993, Lyndon LaRouche, who was in prison at the time, responded immediately to this breakthrough effort to end British geopolitical warfare in the Middle East. He insisted that crucial projects had to begin—ground had to be broken for them—by the end of that very month of September, in order to create the momentum needed for the Accord to succeed. In an interview Sept. 8, 1993, LaRouche said:
“The urgent thing here is that we must move with all speed to immediately get these economic development projects, such as the canal from Gaza to the Dead Sea, going, because if we wait until we discuss this thing out, enemies of progress and enemies of the human race, such as Kissinger and his friends, will be successful, through people like (Ariel) Sharon’s buddies, in intervening to drown this agreement in blood and chaos.”
The lesson for today, is that the dramatic global shift that has been opened up around Syria must be brought to fruition by rapidly bringing economic development throughout the region, based on the Belt and Road Initiative and LaRouche’s proposals for a global economic and cultural renaissance.