This is a chance for stakeholders to commit to removing it from
its metaphorical resistance axis and reorienting it with its neighbourhood
By Mishaal Al Gergawi
An image grab taken off the official Syrian TV shows the scene of a blast in Syria's second largest city of Aleppo on February 10, 2012.
After
Russia and China vetoed the Syria resolution in the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC), Bashar Ja'afari , Syria's ambassador to the UN, asked if it
made sense for a country (read regime) to step up its campaign against its own
people on the eve of such a resolution. He explained further, deducing that
this was proof that there indeed are militant terrorist groups in Syria who are
committing those crimes.
But
the track record of the Syrian regime's army and iron grip over the state
raises serious questions of exactly how such a group would be able to
effectively bombard the city of Homs with heavy artillery and tanks for so many
days undetected — these are not suicide bombers. What everyone at the UNSC
seems to agree on is that the death of civilians must stop; the latest UN
estimates place the death toll above 6,000. So here is the point: For the sake
of thwarting the Syrian argument, it doesn't matter who's doing the killing. If
it is indeed the Syrian government then they've lost their legitimacy. And if
it is the armed terrorists groups that can shell Homs and more recently Daraa
days on end with the Syrian regime helpless, then the latter's legitimacy has
been lost on the grounds that it can no longer maintain order, let alone
protect its own people.
In
short, whether the regime and its apologists (old Arab leftists, resistance
axis states, Hezbollah, Russia, China etc) admit to its actually committing
those crimes against its own citizens or not is irrelevant as long as they do
admit that such atrocities are taking place.
The
world's responsibility is to stop the massacre of civilians. If the Syrian
regime wants to accuse a vague collective of anti-Baath, Muslim Brotherhood and
pro-Israel terrorists so be it. But it should also know that a regime that
cannot stop such a group, evidently with tanks and heavy artillery, for 11
months has already declared itself unable to maintain order, let alone lead.
This is no longer about a blood detesting ophthalmologist-turned-president by
process of accidental fraternal elimination. This is about kids with blown jaws
but do not die for another day, this is about children dying in their parents'
funerals and others skinned and beheaded. Syria is, both, the most politically
entrenched and the most morally demanding conflict we are yet to deal with
since the advent of the Arab Spring. The question now is how do you deal with
an exponentially rising death toll — the death toll in December was 5,000.
Complicating
matters further, the opposition groups are not completely united. There is
Burhan Galioun's Syrian National Council (SNC), Hussain Abdul Azim's Syrian
National Coordination Committee (NCC), the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Free Officer
Corps, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafists, independent Islamists and youth
activists divided into several national coalitions. There is still the question
of the Alawites themselves, as well as the Shiite and Christian minorities and
Kurdish interests. Should the Syrians miraculously succeed in toppling the
regime on their own, regional and international players will do to Syria what
its Baathist regime, among others, did to Lebanon. Left to their own devices, a
civil war among the Syrians seems inevitable.
Peace-keeping
mission
Of
course there are still some diplomatic tactics that must play out; the GCC has
expelled Syrian ambassadors last week. There is still the recognition of the
SNC by the international community, uniting the opposition around it and the
Friends of Syria pressure clique. Alas, the comments of Sergei Lavrov, Russia's
foreign minister, after his visit to Syria that Bashar Al Assad had promised
him to end bloodshed while the shelling of Daraa and Homs continued paves the
way for military and political intervention.
And
so because of all the above, I propose a long-term mission of military and
political intervention. It would begin with a military intervention to topple
the regime, roughly along the lines of what a fellow writer recently wrote in a
UAE newspaper about "Turkish-Jordanian-GCC [ground troops], fighting the
regime on both northern and southern fronts, with US and Nato air and
intelligence ground support." In addition, I suggest simultaneously
offering a general amnesty with a deadline for the regime's military and
civilian apparatus in return for immediate defection, which would likely hasten
the implosion of the regime.
It
would then require a peace-keeping mission that would also be embedded with
observers to ensure Syrian people's own transition to a representative
democracy (read guarantees about rights of minorities) backed by a sustainable
economy. Arming the FSA or any other opposition group at this point could lead
to the emergence of post-Al Assad militias; we've seen glimpses of this in
Libya. After Al Assad is toppled this would lead to retributions that would
eventually turn into a sectarian war, one that is sure to have a regional fall
out; think Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Turkey and Jordan just to name a few. This is
a chance for Syria's stakeholders to commit to removing it from its largely
metaphorically resistance axis and reorienting it with its neighbourhood. It is
also one of those rare cases where the long-term responsibility of Syria's
neighbours' to its crisis is driven by idealism and realism.
-This commentary was published in The GULF NEWS on 13/02/2012
-Mishaal Al Gergawi is an Emirati current affairs commentator
-Mishaal Al Gergawi is an Emirati current affairs commentator
No comments:
Post a Comment