Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Artículo Salida EEUU de Siria
Artículo Salida EEUU de Siria
The pithiest summary of Donald Trump’s foreign policy comes from the president
himself. Referring to the mayhem he has uncorked in Syria, he tweeted: “I hope they
all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!” Mr Trump imagines he can abandon an ally in
a dangerous region without serious consequences for the United States. He is wrong.
The betrayal of the Kurds will lead friends and foes to doubt Mr Trump’s America.
That is something both Americans and the world should lament.
El resumen más contundente de la política exterior de Donald Trump proviene del propio
presidente. Refiriéndose al caos que ha descorchado en Siria, tuiteó: "¡Espero que todos lo
hagan bien, estamos a 7,000 millas de distancia!". Trump imagina que puede abandonar a
un aliado en una región peligrosa sin graves consecuencias para Estados Unidos. El está
equivocado. La traición de los kurdos llevará a amigos y enemigos a dudar de la América
de Trump. Eso es algo que tanto los estadounidenses como el mundo deberían lamentarse.
His decision to pull out 1,000 American troops has rapidly destroyed the fragile truce
in northern Syria (see article). The withdrawal created space for a Turkish assault on
the Kurds that has so far cost hundreds of lives; at least 160,000 people have fled their
homes. Hordes of Islamic State (is) backers, once guarded by the Kurds, have escaped
from internment camps. With nowhere else to turn, the Kurds have sought help from
Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s blood-drenched despot, an enemy of America.
Mr Trump campaigned on bringing troops home. He has argued that America must
rid itself of “endless wars”. When he says Russia, Iran and Turkey can deal with the
mess in Syria, many of his voters will agree. After almost two decades at war, they
have tired of America acting as the world’s policeman. Some Democrats would like to
pull troops out of the Middle East, too, including Elizabeth Warren, a leading
contender to replace Mr Trump.
Trump hizo campaña para traer tropas a casa. Él ha argumentado que Estados Unidos debe
librarse de "guerras interminables". Cuando dice que Rusia, Irán y Turquía pueden lidiar
con el desastre en Siria, muchos de sus votantes estarán de acuerdo. Después de casi dos
décadas en la guerra, se han cansado de que Estados Unidos actúe como el policía del
mundo. A algunos demócratas también les gustaría sacar tropas de Medio Oriente, incluida
Elizabeth Warren, una de las principales contendientes para reemplazar a Trump.
Mr Trump’s exit from Syria fails the trust test on many levels. One is seriousness. The
president seemingly neglected the briefing papers warning of the dire consequences of
a power vacuum created by withdrawing the 1,000-strong tripwire force. The
abruptness of the decision took nearly everyone by surprise, including his own
officials. The Kurds were startled and appalled. British troops woke up to discover
that their American brothers-in-arms were packing up. No one had time to prepare.
The policy also fails on loyalty. Kurdish troops in Syria fought beside American
special forces and air power to crush is’s “caliphate”. Some 11,000 Kurdish fighters
lost their lives; five Americans also perished. The superpower had fused its matchless
intelligence-gathering with a local ally to drive out the world’s worst terrorists at a
relatively modest cost in blood and treasure.
La política también falla en la lealtad. Las tropas kurdas en Siria lucharon junto a las
fuerzas especiales estadounidenses y el poder aéreo para aplastar el "califato". Unos 11,000
combatientes kurdos perdieron la vida; cinco estadounidenses también perecieron. La
superpotencia había fusionado su incomparable reunión de inteligencia con un aliado local
para expulsar a los peores terroristas del mundo a un costo relativamente modesto en sangre
y tesoros.
Worst of all, the policy fails on strategy. Not just because of the potential revival of is
and the fillip to Mr Assad. But also because Iran, a bitter foe of America and ally of
Mr Assad, will benefit from America’s withdrawal. Russians, too, are taking gleeful
selfies in abandoned American bases. Vladimir Putin, Mr Assad’s backer, is claiming
America’s mantle as the guarantor of order in the Middle East, a role the Soviet
Union lost in the 1970s. In order to extract from Syria a small force that was
sustaining few casualties, America has needlessly unleashed a new cross-border
conflict, empowered its enemies and betrayed its friends.
Mr Trump seems to think that he can use America’s titanic commercial clout as a
substitute for hard power. Economic sanctions have become his answer to every
problem—including that of Turkey’s invasion. Yet when vital interests are at stake,
states rarely seem to give ground. Just as Russia still occupies Crimea, Nicolás
Maduro runs Venezuela and Kim Jong Un has his nukes, so Turkey has vowed to
fight on in Syria. As China’s economy develops, sanctions may also be a wasting asset.
Even today, pressed by America to cut ties with Huawei, a Chinese telecoms giant,
many countries are reluctant to comply.
Trump parece pensar que puede usar la influencia comercial titánica de Estados Unidos
como un sustituto del poder duro. Las sanciones económicas se han convertido en su
respuesta a todos los problemas, incluida la invasión de Turquía. Sin embargo, cuando hay
intereses vitales en juego, los estados rara vez parecen ceder terreno. Así como Rusia
todavía ocupa Crimea, Nicolás Maduro dirige Venezuela y Kim Jong Un tiene sus armas
nucleares, así que Turquía ha prometido seguir luchando en Siria. A medida que se
desarrolla la economía de China, las sanciones también pueden ser un activo inútil. Incluso
hoy, presionados por Estados Unidos para cortar los lazos con Huawei, un gigante chino de
las telecomunicaciones, muchos países son reacios a cumplir.
The Syrian debacle shows how all this could harm America. In Europe even before
the assault, Turkey was at loggerheads with nato over its purchase of Russian air-
defence missiles. Because the invasion has led to sanctions and arms embargoes
against Turkey, the cracks in nato will only deepen. Mr Putin may be tempted to test
America’s commitment to defending the Baltic states, tiny nato allies on Russia’s
border. In Asia the Taliban will redouble their efforts, reasoning that if Mr Trump
can dump the Kurds, he can dump Afghanistan, too. China will take note, bide its
time and steadily press its territorial claims against its neighbours. Taiwan, an
admirable democracy, has just got a little less secure. Around the world, America’s
allies—of which it still has more than any nation in history—will have more reason to
arm themselves, possibly fuelling regional arms races. Will South Korea or Saudi
Arabia, fearful of being abandoned, be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons to guard
themselves from North Korea or Iran?
La debacle siria muestra cómo todo esto podría dañar a Estados Unidos. En Europa, incluso
antes del asalto, Turquía estaba en desacuerdo con la OTAN por la compra de misiles de
defensa aérea rusos. Debido a que la invasión ha llevado a sanciones y embargos de armas
contra Turquía, las grietas en la OTAN solo se profundizarán. Putin puede verse tentado a
poner a prueba el compromiso de Estados Unidos de defender a los estados bálticos,
pequeños aliados de la OTAN en la frontera con Rusia. En Asia, los talibanes redoblarán
sus esfuerzos, razonando que si Trump puede deshacerse de los kurdos, también puede
deshacerse de Afganistán. China tomará nota, esperará y presionará constantemente sus
reclamos territoriales contra sus vecinos. Taiwán, una democracia admirable, se ha vuelto
un poco menos segura. En todo el mundo, los aliados de Estados Unidos, de los cuales
todavía tiene más que cualquier otra nación en la historia, tendrán más razones para
armarse, posiblemente alimentando las carreras armamentistas regionales. ¿Corea del Sur o
Arabia Saudita, temerosos de ser abandonados, se verán tentados a adquirir armas nucleares
para protegerse de Corea del Norte o Irán?
Taken together, these concerns represent the unravelling of the order that America
worked hard to build and sustain in the decades since the second world war, and from
which it benefits in countless ways. If it pulled back it would still have to invest in
arms and soldiers to protect its people and firms—and without so much support from
allies. More important, distrust, once earned, could not be confined to military affairs.
Other countries would be less keen to strike long-term trade deals with America. They
would hesitate to join in countering Chinese industrial espionage or rule-breaking
that harms the United States. Most important, America would undermine its own
values. Human rights, democracy, dependability and fair dealing, however patchily
honoured, are America’s most powerful weapon. If China and Russia had their way,
might would be right. For the West, that would be a profoundly hostile world.