By Walid M. Sadi
Six
months or so into the Syrian uprising, there are two possible scenarios that
can emerge: the total crushing of the “Intifada” or further escalation of the
Syrian insurgency that could turn into an armed conflict.
The
chances for the first scenario to succeed depend first and foremost on the
continued support Russia extends to the Syrian government. Moscow is capable of
blocking any resolution that would legitimise an armed intervention from
outside Syria to support the opposition.
Moscow
is expected to maintain its unconditional support for the Syrian regime for
political reasons - it views Syria as a strategic ally in the Middle East.
Russia
is on record as supporting reforms in Syria, but under no circumstances would
it tolerate a change of regime. The Russian leadership is also concerned about
the huge stockpile of sophisticated chemical weapons in Syria’s possession.
Damascus
is reputed to hold one of the biggest stockpiles of these weapons of mass
destruction in its arsenal.
Russia
is afraid that these weapons may fall into the wrong hands if there is a regime
change in the country. Accordingly, a dramatic change in Russia’s on Syria’s
stances does not appear to be in the cards for as far as one can see.
The
second scenario, projecting a rise of militancy among the opposition in Syria,
cannot be ruled out altogether.
Nations
of the world were unable to get a UN Security Council resolution condoning an
armed intervention to stop the deadly crackdown on protesters and the rapid
rise in violence on both sides. The situation in Syria may turn worse, with
both sides increasing their reliance on violence to influence the course of
events.
The
inescapable conclusion is that the situation in Syria is still too fluid and
volatile to make a sound guess as to where Syria could be heading.
The
Baath Party that rules Syria is no novice when it comes to dealing with
challenges, both from within and from without the country. Its continued
dependence on arguments about sovereignty rights and the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of countries may run out of ammunition
in the face of contemporary jurisprudence, which says that sovereignty no
longer exists in absolute terms but rather in relative terms.
When
nations become members of the UN and state parties to international
conventions, they automatically surrender some of the attributes of their
sovereignty.
UN
member states can now be monitored by international mechanisms by virtue of
their ratification of international norms, and Syria is no exception.
It
is still within the capability of Damascus to change the game by developing a
clearer vision of where it wants to go. The destiny of Syria still lies in the
hands of the ruling regime if it decides to behave in an enlightened manner.
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 04/09/2011
No comments:
Post a Comment