By PETER YOUNG

SO much has been written and broadcast about the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that it might be useful today to isolate the main points of a crisis that has developed so fast.

Following an offensive that began in late November, armed rebels took over the Syrian capital city of Damascus on December 8 and the notorious dictator of 24 years, Assad, and his English-born wife, were forced to flee the country to Russia which has provided sanctuary and granted them political asylum.

Well-trained and equipped rebels swept across Syria with speed, precipitating his swift downfall following a 13-year civil war which started after he crushed pro-democracy protests during clashes that were reported to have killed half a million people and displaced millions as well.

Assad has been called a murderous tyrant who imposed the most brutal of wars upon his own people, including using chemical weapons. Already, the seismic event of his overthrow has had serious repercussions throughout the region and around the world, notably in Iran and Russia for whom Assad’s fall has been a serious setback. It has ushered in a new era of uncertainty for the Middle East, and commentators are saying that any disintegration of Syria could create a strategic change for the whole region, not least because other dominoes might also be knocked over.

The rebel opposition force called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, who was previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, reportedly has installed a transition government to navigate the difficult period immediately post-Assad. So, after 50 years of tyrannical and murderous rule by the Assad family and a civil war, all eyes are on the immediate future. People are now waiting to see whether Syria is destined to fall prey to jihadists or might even have a democratic future.

According to reports, HTS has indicated it is seeking an inclusive government that will ensure Syria is not split on sectarian lines. Whatever develops, an outcome to be effective should ideally be supported by Syria’s neighbouring Gulf States since it is not in their interests for the nation to disintegrate and descend into anarchy and chaos.

The US reaction to all this started with President Biden’s early comment that Assad’s fall was “a moment of historic opportunity for the long-suffering people of Syria to build a better future for their proud country, but also a moment of risk and uncertainty”. More recently, secretary of state Antony Blinken reports that colleagues have made “direct contact” with HTS representatives whom are still designated by the US as a terrorist organisation. Clearly, the US would like to support a transition to democracy and a government that distances itself from terrorism.

For Russia, the collapse of Assad has been a setback since its efforts, as a staunch ally, to prop up his regime since 2015 with bombing raids on Syrian rebel forces, together with its complicity in supporting Assad in oppressing his own people in other ways, will surely not be easily forgotten. Thus, Russia’s naval base in the country providing access to the Mediterranean may be at risk.

Assad’s fall has also been a disaster for Iran because, as part of its hatred for Israel and the West, it provided - through its proxy Hezbollah - battleground support for Assad. As for Turkey, it has condemned the latest military action by Israel in the shape of air strikes against Syrian military assets to stop weaponry getting into the hands of jihadist gangs. But people forget that Turkey has expansionist designs on Syria as it has occupied large areas of the northern part of the country since 2016 as well as launching airstrikes on the Kurds. There is also talk – true or not - of President Erdogan’s ambition to renew part of the reach of the old Ottoman empire.

Another interesting aspect of this whole issue is the subject of liberal interventionism.

Former British prime minister set the ball rolling in modern times with a speech in Chicago in 1999 which was widely seen as foreshadowing his later decision to support the mainly US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many in Britain judged later that this decision was grotesquely wrong. He argued that globalisation was as much a political and security phenomenon as an economic one and that the importance of international cooperation and policing in all its forms was essential.

However, much later, in 2017, Theresa May, as one of his successors, distanced herself from “failed policies of the past” and declared that “the days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over”.

There are learned academic papers about this question of intervention available on the Internet. But, for all practical purposes, Theresa May’s view is surely today’s reality as regards what are now called wars of choice rather than those of necessity if one country is attacked by another. So the prospect of any official joint military action in connection with a newly-liberated Syria are practically zero. In the more prosaic words of President-elect Trump: “the US should have nothing to do with the conflict in Syria. Do not get involved”.

MEMBERS OF NATO SHOULD PAY THEIR WAY

In the run-up to last month’s US elections there was much speculation about President-elect Donald Trump’s likely attitude about NATO.

For some time, he has expressed scepticism about the Western alliance. It seems that his doubts are not so much about its military capability and effectiveness since it has been evident that NATO has defined US foreign policy for years. It is more about the levels of defence spending by individual member states, too many of whom have failed to keep to the minimum of two percent of their GDP.

This has recently come into prime focus once again with the first major address last week by former Dutch prime minister, Marc Rutte, who took up his new post as NATO secretary general only in October.

He will be fully aware of Trump’s latest views because he called on him in the US in November for talks on global security issues.

In this speech, secretary general Rutte stressed that it was time for NATO to “shift to a wartime mindset”. He warned that the military alliance’s members were not spending enough to prepare for the threat of a future conflict with a Russia which he judged was preparing for a long-term “confrontation with the UK and with us”. He said that the current threat made the situation “the worst in my lifetime” and urged NATO members to “turbocharge” their defence spending.

Rutte also spoke about reported threats by Trump that the US would not protect NATO allies that were failing to spend enough on defence. There had also been reports that Trump had said he would “encourage” Russia to attack NATO allies “who do not pay their bills”. But collective defence is at the heart of NATO as set out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is said, officially, that NATO’s greatest responsibility is to protect and defend Allied territory and populations against attack in an unpredictable world where peace and security cannot be taken for granted.

Interestingly, the outgoing secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, commented separately that any suggestion that NATO allies would not defend one another “undermines all of our security”. President Biden also suggested that Trump’s remarks on the issue “endangered American national security”.

A little research shows that NATO expects 23 of its 32 members to achieve the target level of 2 percent of spending on defence this year. Poland tops the list in 2024, allocating 4.1 percent, with Estonia in second place and the US in third place with 3.4 percent. The UK is ninth with 2.3 percent but has announced a commitment to 2.5 per cent in the foreseeable future.

However, Rutte has said “a lot more” is expected of NATO members as danger approaches. The war in Ukraine was at a critical juncture with Russian forces grinding forward in the east of the country. Russia’s economy was now on a war footing with defence spending in 2025 set to be a third of the country’s state budget. As NATO secretary general he was, therefore, appealing directly to the people to persuade their elected political leaders of the seriousness of the situation and to urge an increase of their countries’ national defence budgets as required.

Life impossible without internet

For most people of a certain age the existence of the internet is regarded as something of a miracle.

Apart from individual memory buds it has become the most easily accessible source of information available and it beats delving in to the Encyclopedia Britannica, assuming that that admirable tome is anyway readily available. Imagine my utter dismay, therefore, when the Internet became unattainable on my computer on Friday afternoon while I was doing research for today’s column. When I lost access to it, I admit to experiencing a mild panic attack.

Fortunately, however, the moment soon passed because it turned out to be only a temporary glitch and that feeling of nakedness and vulnerability instantly evaporated. Its restoration a bit later induced overwhelming relief. But it made me reflect on how heavily dependent we have all become on the marvels of technological advance.

The internet can be used in so many different ways which everyone knows about so they do not bear repetition today. That said, what tends to amaze me most is the knowledge that at a click of a mouse one can be in instant contact with someone else halfway across the world.

But, like so many aspects of modern life, familiarity really can lead to contempt when those of the next generation, brought up on computers, tend to take the whole business for granted. For the older generation, the well-known adage kicked in that one does not appreciate something properly until it disappears or is taken away from you – and that brought on another thought that life is not about always having what you want but rather ensuring that you want or appreciate properly what you already have.

I reckon that some of those of a certain age find it hard to get their heads around the whole thing of today’s communications – not only as a source of information but emails, texting and messaging and social media. But we are grateful for them as they make day-to-living so much more convenient. Truly, a modern miracle.