Cold War Hangover

The 16th Non-Aligned Movement summit underway in the Iranian capital Tehran offers a mixed bag for India. India’s large delegation, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, sends out a signal that we still hold a lot of brief for a multilateral institution that has long outlived its purpose of creation. This is evident from the fact that for the Tehran meet the prime minister is accompanied by the external affairs minister, the national security adviser, and foreign secretary among other delegates. Giving such importance to a Cold War relic is a reflection of the flawed foreign policy approach of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance.

While the meeting between Manmohan Singh and his Bangladeshi counterpart Shiekh Hasina is a positive, it would have had a better effect if the leaders met in either New Delhi or Dhaka. Singh meeting Pakistan President Zardari or any other Pakistan leader — and such meetings on the ‘sidelines’ of important summits have become nauseating frequent — will have little of the desired effect. Manmohan Singh and his government must realise that we have done enough of talking with our neighbour and now the message should be that unless there is tangible action from Islamabad normalcy in ties cannot be restored.
For Iran the NAM summit is an important event and it will be Tehran’s answer to Washington, and other Western powers, which has been exerting pressure to make it an international pariah. The presence of Latin American leaders, rulers from Oman and Kuwait, leaders from the subcontinent, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the attendance of UN general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, is definitely a show of strength by Iran.
While it goes without saying that India has to have good ties with Iran on its own terms and not take instructions from the United States, it is important that we not strain our relations with Israel at the cost of extending a hand to Iran. This diplomatic tightrope walk is the challenge the Singh government will have to face.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on August 31)

Collective Failure Sees Syria Burning

The Syrian Free Army is not organised and powerful to stand against Assad's forces

When the protests took off in January 2011 in Syria, no one thought that the opposition to the government would take so much time to bear fruit. It started as a peaceful protest but soon took a wrong turn and became violent. Resistance against the Assad government, along with sectarian violence, has seen city after city being attacked and it seems that human life is the ready casualty. According to estimates by the United Nations (UN) at least 10,000 people have been killed and scores more have been injured and displaced since the protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad started.

US Inaction

The economic slowdown since 2008 and the costly misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the US realise that it can no longer go about its old ways. The US has pulled out of Iraq and has set a timetable for its exit from Afghanistan. Given the scenario, it would not want to engage its troops in another mission on foreign soil.

Washington is like a cat that is extremely cautious after having stepped water. Only a cat that has lost its mind will step into a bowl of boiling water. The presidential election in November is another reason why the US could be exercising extreme caution.

Russian Obstacle

Probably, the biggest hindrance for any meaningful UN resolution on Syria is the stand taken by Russia. Russia has strong military, economic and political ties with Syria and does not want to relinquish relations with its sole ally in the region.

The Kremlin is banking on the probability that by assisting Assad it can help the government gain control and that things will get back to normal.

What the Kremlin does not seem to understand is that the longer the unrest continues the slimmer the chances of Assad regaining control are, and prolonged conflict will only strengthen the Islamists. For the Islamists Russia is the bete noire.

What has not helped is the recent accusation by the Obama administration that the Kremlin was arming Damascus with helicopters. The US has been blowing hot and cold over its remarks on Russia. After US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of providing Syria with assault helicopters, the US State Department ate humble pie saying that the helicopters were ‘refurbished’ and belonged to the Assad regime. Countering the US attack on Russia, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow was not arming Syria to attack peaceful demonstrations but at the same time Washington was giving riot control gear to regimes in the region — hinting at alleged US covert efforts to help tackle growing protests in Bahrain.

Rise of Islamists

The so-called Arab Spring sparked off in Tunisia. From there it spread to Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, and by the time to gripped Syria it had brought down a few regimes and was taking a form that was not conducive for the world powers in the region.

Political observers look at the ‘Arab Spring’ as a development which none — neither the people nor the governments— had anticipated to take its present form.

By the time the wave of freedom and unrest spread to Syria, it was clear that the Islamist forces/groups, that were either kept at the margins or outside the system (thanks to the pro-West bend the fallen rulers had adopted in their countries over the years), had gained a foothold and were working their way to the heart of the system. The most prominent of these groups is the Muslim Brotherhood.

While analysts have been caught unawares by public acceptance and support base the Brotherhood has gained, what worries them is that the Brotherhood might enforce retrograde codes of conduct thereby enforcing a sort of ‘Talibanisation’ of the countries that are in a political flux. Even if one were to think that the Brotherhood is not much of a problem, what cannot be wished away is the possibility of the al-Qaeda gaining ground where there is a vacuum of power and order. The Assad government’s brutal use of force and the near helplessness of Western powers have left the people opposing the government on their own. In this time of need it is the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups that are extending a helping hand — Islamists have been pouring in money and many people are turning to them for arms and protection.

In Syria, while the resistance to Assad’s army was initially peaceful this changed once the protesters were attacked by the Syrian military.

While it has been almost impossible to ascertain the pattern and chronology of the attacks, the rebels started armed resistance after their non-violent demonstrations were targeted by Assad’s army. Many from the military defected and formed what is now called the Syrian Free Army.

It is speculated that there are western governments, including the US and other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar that are arming the Syrian opposition — though not in a way to match Assad’s brutality.

Difficult Moves

Not much hope should rest on the peace plan that former UN general secretary Kofi Annan has been trying to resuscitate for some time now. That is a dead horse and no amount of goodwill will suffice. For a peace plan to work, the basic fact is that both sides in the conflict agree that there is a conflict/issue and express interest towards resolving their grievances. Here, the Assad regime maintains that it is a domestic problem being fanned by vested interests from outside the country. As for the Syrian opposition, it has evolved from a peaceful, well-meaning protest to a headless armed resistance that is assuming dangerous proportions with every passing day.

The best shot the West and Arab countries have is to get Russia to turn around and work towards stopping the bloodshed in Syria. However, that is easier said than done. Vladimir Putin is back as Russian president and a lot will depend on how Obama and Putin strike a chord.  The role of the Arab nations is important. It is to be seen if they have a plan for Syria in the event of Assad’s fall. Rooting for it without a far-sighted plan will only be a gift to the Islamist forces that thrive in such situations. Iran can also not be kept out of the picture for the simple fact that it is a powerful regional force and has considerable clout in Syria.

Address Flaws

The crisis in Syria is a reflection of one of the many problems that exposes the limitations of the UN and many other international agreements.  This is an apt instance to show the unflinching and enviable power the P5 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) enjoys needs to be questioned.  If Russia and China had not objected to resolutions and other actions on the Syrian government, by now it is probable that things would have looked better in Syria. The crisis in Syria is a lesion and needs to be treated at the earliest.  However, the cause for it needs to be addressed and the required corrections made.
(This appeared in The New Indian Express on June 19, 2012)

Syria Question Divides the World

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)