On Saturday the United Nations saw Russia and China vetoing a West and Arab League-backed resolution against Syria demanding President Bashar al-Assad to step down because of the bloody crackdown on his people. Hours before the UN meeting deadly attacks carried out by Syrian security forces (Syrian authorities have blamed the opposition) killed more than 200 people in Homs, 160 kilometres north of Damascus. Though Russia and China acted on expected lines, India voting in favour of the resolution was a surprise. Known to usually abstain from such moves, India has asked for a peaceful resolution that sees Syria also being involved in the process. India has done the right move by showing that it is capable of taking tough decisions at an international forum. This is also a statement that it has earned its UNSC seat.
With Syria being the vortex of the so-called Arab Spring, the West has got in its hand a crisis it wished had not begun. Not only has the West lost its set pieces on the board, it has seen the rise of ‘radical’ forces like the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. Add to this the chaos spreading to other countries and an all-too assertive Iran - the West (primarily the United States of America) is having what seems to be a series of nightmares.
However, anyone who has observed Syria over the decades will not be surprised at the turn of events. After all it is Bashar whom the US preferred to keep in spite of the atrocities he has carried out in the region and against the US. Bashar has killed thousands of his people and sent militants into Iraq to kill American contractors; he has armed the Hezbollah, supported the Hamas, is an Iran ally and has adversely influenced the developments in Lebanon. But Washington maintained the stand that the known devil is better than the unknown. The fear of a more radical outfit gaining prominence in Damascus or that of the country descending into chaos has vanished and now the US is in the forefront of demanding the ouster of Assad. The factors that have led to Washington’s change of mind are not clear yet. David Schenker, a former Levant director at the Pentagon, was of the opinion that America’s policy towards Syria has always been one that has not yet been developed.
The Survivor
Bashar al-Assad has been able to hold fort till date mainly because of two reasons. First is the relation he has maintained with the West and other countries, importantly Russia (see Russia Factor). The second is Assad’s minority plank. Assad, a Ba’ath Party member and Alawi has made sure to infuse pride among the minorities in the country that their president, ruthless as he may be, he is one among them and has protected them from the majority Sunni community which otherwise would have relegated them to the margins of society. There are also sections in Syria that feel that he has lend respect and honour to a country that was otherwise not taken seriously in the region. Bashar al-Assad is known to have told his close associates that he was of the view that if a ruler provides the people with what they want, he can rule without hassles. According to Bashar he would provide the people of Syria the basics - a home, a job and a car - and in return his rule will go on unopposed, unquestioned.
Lessons Learnt
The prolonged crisis (the unrest started in March last year) in Syria shows that unlike as was the case earlier when the United States (without considering the option of approaching the United Nations) thought it fit to invade Iraq on its hunt for non-existing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), now the scene has changed. The economic slowdown, the rise of other economies and the international condemnation Washington has received for its exploits in West Asia, both from within the country and outside, has played a role in it mellowing down on its ways. It has realised that its trigger-happy enforcement of democracy around the world has earned it more enemies than friends.
The experience in Egypt and Libya has taught the world, especially the West, important lessons on how not to go about in Syria. While in Egypt (after initial reluctance) the US supported the opposition movement, the result is not what as expected. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, through the ballot, has caught them unawares. In Libya, the West managed to oust and capture Muammar Gaddafi but the Libyan Transitional Council has not been able to show the promise of stability and peace, vital for a country that has witnessed a revolution.
Russia Factor
Russia has been criticised for being the stumbling block for a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. Russia’s deputy foreign minister Gennadi Gatilov has said that the move to ouster Assad was a “doomed” one and instead the call should be to fight the opposition forces that are causing violence in the country. Syria is a big client of Russia’s arms industries and this lobby has a great sway over Kremlin. Syria yearly buys close to $700 million worth of arms from Russia. The unrest in the region has caused a dip in the sales and Russia has already cancelled lucrative deals with Iran after reaching an agreement with Washington.
Political analyst observing Kremlin believe that elections in Russia will change its approach towards Syria and any future UNSC resolution. Many say that President Dmitry Medvedev was ‘fooled’, by the West, into believing action was necessary in Libya. Moreover, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is likely to be the next president, has not been mincing his words while criticising the West (US) for creating unrest in Russia. He is also doubtful of the West’s intentions in West Asia. Russia is also not buying the argument put forward by the West that unless it supports the opposition movement in Syria, it will not be a frontrunner when the new government is formed in Damascus. Russia’s defense, and a valid one, is that if the current government falls it will be followed by a civil war and sectarian violence leading to chaos, as is witnessed in other countries in the region. Assad’s iron hand over the political system has rendered it without a visible and efficient opposition that can takeover once Assad is gone. The civil war will create large-scale migration into neighbouring countries further worsening the situation.
Arab League Report
As is the case with most of the developments in West Asia, the Arab League report submitted by its observers who toured Syria is mired in controversy. While the report was backed by Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Oman, it was opposed by Qatar - the current president of the league. One of the arguments is that the observers were not able to extensively tour the affected regions and thus their report does not reflect the extensive damage done by the Assad regime. Damascus, in its defense, is arguing that violence was on the rise in many of the regions the observers toured because the government had pulled back its forces, according to the demand of the observers. Groups backing the Assad regime state that the government is fighting ‘shady armed gangs’ that are causing unrest in the country to bring down the government.
The Arab League report and the developments thereafter should be viewed from the fact that Syria was suspended from the league in November last. Also, among the more than two dozen countries that are calling for Syria’s ouster from two UN committees are Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The UNESCO executive board meeting convening from February 27 will take a call on this issue.
Conclusion
There is an urgent need for a plan to stop the violence and bloodshed in Syria because the longer the unrest prolongs more are the chances of sectarian wars breaking out between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian, Kurd minority. The United Nations will not be able to bring peace to the country once things deteriorate to that level and we can expect something at par or even worse than what is now being witnessed in Iraq and Libya.
Given this one cannot sit idle and watch as Assad, or as he claims ‘extremist elements’, continue to unleash violence and kill innocent people throughout the country. The West has its interests and so do Russia and other Arab nations. There are pitfalls in a UNSC resolution against the Assad regime but if one were to weigh both the options, it is better than not taking any action at all. The world has to choose between the lesser of evils to check a brutal dictator and give Syrians the freedom and peace they deserve.
(An edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express on February 6)
With Syria being the vortex of the so-called Arab Spring, the West has got in its hand a crisis it wished had not begun. Not only has the West lost its set pieces on the board, it has seen the rise of ‘radical’ forces like the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. Add to this the chaos spreading to other countries and an all-too assertive Iran - the West (primarily the United States of America) is having what seems to be a series of nightmares.However, anyone who has observed Syria over the decades will not be surprised at the turn of events. After all it is Bashar whom the US preferred to keep in spite of the atrocities he has carried out in the region and against the US. Bashar has killed thousands of his people and sent militants into Iraq to kill American contractors; he has armed the Hezbollah, supported the Hamas, is an Iran ally and has adversely influenced the developments in Lebanon. But Washington maintained the stand that the known devil is better than the unknown. The fear of a more radical outfit gaining prominence in Damascus or that of the country descending into chaos has vanished and now the US is in the forefront of demanding the ouster of Assad. The factors that have led to Washington’s change of mind are not clear yet. David Schenker, a former Levant director at the Pentagon, was of the opinion that America’s policy towards Syria has always been one that has not yet been developed.
The Survivor
Bashar al-Assad has been able to hold fort till date mainly because of two reasons. First is the relation he has maintained with the West and other countries, importantly Russia (see Russia Factor). The second is Assad’s minority plank. Assad, a Ba’ath Party member and Alawi has made sure to infuse pride among the minorities in the country that their president, ruthless as he may be, he is one among them and has protected them from the majority Sunni community which otherwise would have relegated them to the margins of society. There are also sections in Syria that feel that he has lend respect and honour to a country that was otherwise not taken seriously in the region. Bashar al-Assad is known to have told his close associates that he was of the view that if a ruler provides the people with what they want, he can rule without hassles. According to Bashar he would provide the people of Syria the basics - a home, a job and a car - and in return his rule will go on unopposed, unquestioned.
Lessons Learnt
The prolonged crisis (the unrest started in March last year) in Syria shows that unlike as was the case earlier when the United States (without considering the option of approaching the United Nations) thought it fit to invade Iraq on its hunt for non-existing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), now the scene has changed. The economic slowdown, the rise of other economies and the international condemnation Washington has received for its exploits in West Asia, both from within the country and outside, has played a role in it mellowing down on its ways. It has realised that its trigger-happy enforcement of democracy around the world has earned it more enemies than friends.
The experience in Egypt and Libya has taught the world, especially the West, important lessons on how not to go about in Syria. While in Egypt (after initial reluctance) the US supported the opposition movement, the result is not what as expected. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, through the ballot, has caught them unawares. In Libya, the West managed to oust and capture Muammar Gaddafi but the Libyan Transitional Council has not been able to show the promise of stability and peace, vital for a country that has witnessed a revolution.
Russia has been criticised for being the stumbling block for a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. Russia’s deputy foreign minister Gennadi Gatilov has said that the move to ouster Assad was a “doomed” one and instead the call should be to fight the opposition forces that are causing violence in the country. Syria is a big client of Russia’s arms industries and this lobby has a great sway over Kremlin. Syria yearly buys close to $700 million worth of arms from Russia. The unrest in the region has caused a dip in the sales and Russia has already cancelled lucrative deals with Iran after reaching an agreement with Washington.
Political analyst observing Kremlin believe that elections in Russia will change its approach towards Syria and any future UNSC resolution. Many say that President Dmitry Medvedev was ‘fooled’, by the West, into believing action was necessary in Libya. Moreover, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is likely to be the next president, has not been mincing his words while criticising the West (US) for creating unrest in Russia. He is also doubtful of the West’s intentions in West Asia. Russia is also not buying the argument put forward by the West that unless it supports the opposition movement in Syria, it will not be a frontrunner when the new government is formed in Damascus. Russia’s defense, and a valid one, is that if the current government falls it will be followed by a civil war and sectarian violence leading to chaos, as is witnessed in other countries in the region. Assad’s iron hand over the political system has rendered it without a visible and efficient opposition that can takeover once Assad is gone. The civil war will create large-scale migration into neighbouring countries further worsening the situation.
Arab League Report
As is the case with most of the developments in West Asia, the Arab League report submitted by its observers who toured Syria is mired in controversy. While the report was backed by Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Oman, it was opposed by Qatar - the current president of the league. One of the arguments is that the observers were not able to extensively tour the affected regions and thus their report does not reflect the extensive damage done by the Assad regime. Damascus, in its defense, is arguing that violence was on the rise in many of the regions the observers toured because the government had pulled back its forces, according to the demand of the observers. Groups backing the Assad regime state that the government is fighting ‘shady armed gangs’ that are causing unrest in the country to bring down the government.
The Arab League report and the developments thereafter should be viewed from the fact that Syria was suspended from the league in November last. Also, among the more than two dozen countries that are calling for Syria’s ouster from two UN committees are Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The UNESCO executive board meeting convening from February 27 will take a call on this issue.
Conclusion
There is an urgent need for a plan to stop the violence and bloodshed in Syria because the longer the unrest prolongs more are the chances of sectarian wars breaking out between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian, Kurd minority. The United Nations will not be able to bring peace to the country once things deteriorate to that level and we can expect something at par or even worse than what is now being witnessed in Iraq and Libya.
Given this one cannot sit idle and watch as Assad, or as he claims ‘extremist elements’, continue to unleash violence and kill innocent people throughout the country. The West has its interests and so do Russia and other Arab nations. There are pitfalls in a UNSC resolution against the Assad regime but if one were to weigh both the options, it is better than not taking any action at all. The world has to choose between the lesser of evils to check a brutal dictator and give Syrians the freedom and peace they deserve.
(An edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express on February 6)
No comments:
Post a Comment