Geoffrey Howard |
| Feb. 22, 2012, a house on fire after Syrian government shelling in Baba Amr, Homs province, Syria. (AP/Local Coordination Committees in Syria) CBS News |
The appalling brutality of the Syrian regime has been laid
bare over the past few weeks, with the siege of Homs claiming over 500
lives and leading to the start of a full-scale humanitarian crisis in the
beleaguered opposition stronghold.
Syria’s 11-month old uprising grows more gruesome by the day. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, said
in New York: “I fear that the appalling brutality we are witnessing in Homs,
with heavy weapons firing into civilian neighbourhoods, is a grim harbinger of
things to come”.
The past week has also, however, laid bare the complexity
and political chicanery involved in international diplomacy and foreign policy. In the context of such harrowing media news, Russia
and China’s veto of the UN Security Council’s resolution struck many as not
only cruel and selfish, but as the ‘green light’ that Assad needed to launch
his attack on the opposition with a new and resolute cruelty.
However, we must not assume that the Security Council
Resolution was the best thing for Syria. Its wording and intentions were
extremely bold, promising to go far beyond the remit of sanctions or diplomatic
pressure. The resolution demanded the withdrawal
of the Syrian army from the streets with no parallel demand on armed rebel
groups, with a provision for "further measures" in the event of
"non-compliance", namely foreign military intervention. The
resolution simply went far too far; essentially entailing regime change and
sanctioning foreign military intervention.
Critics of Russia and China have been quick to question the motives of
their decision without studying the substance of the resolution. It has been surprising that little of the
recent media coverage has touched upon the nature of the resolution itself and
the enormity of the intrusion it would place upon another sovereign state. These are important issues that should
require a broader discussion, even when the country in question is being led by
such a person as Assad.
 |
| Syrian families gather at a shelter in Baba Amr neighborhood in Homs MSNBC |
However, what is certainly most regrettable in this instance
is that it is doubtful that China and Russia’s veto was a decision made with
the best interests of the Syrian people at heart, but rather a geopolitical
choice designed to ensure the survival of a Russian naval base in Tartus, a
lucrative arms deal or a firmer presence in the region. It would be hard to deny that the survival of
Assad’s regime would be advantageous to both Moscow and Beijing. Yet again, rival foreign powers are using the
region as a geopolitical bargaining chip with little regard for the ensuing
loss of life.
It is deeply regrettable
that Syria’s position as a strategic ally of Iran has turned a nation’s fight
for political freedom into a highly toxic struggle between key global players.
In the face of such violence and brutality, arguing the case
for non-intervention becomes increasingly difficult. Indeed it appears that for many in the press
and politics, intervention in the case of such a crisis becomes the knee-jerk
logic. There have been increasing calls for intervention, especially following
the failure of the UN resolution. U.S. White House Press Secretary Jay
Carney commented "We definitely don't want to militarize the
situation. But increasingly it looks like it may not be avoidable." The United
Nations has also voiced plans to send observers into the country and the Saudis
and Qataris are already reportedly arming and supporting the opposition. There have also been suggestions that Turkey,
with international support, could take a more central role, creating a buffer
zone within Northern Syria for training and arming opposition forces.
An interesting article by Jonathan
Freedland suggests that the opposition voiced by a number of people to
liberal interventionism is an automatic reaction following the disastrous
events of the 2003 Iraq war. He believes
that a blanket rejection of intervention in all cases is as dangerous as a
blanket support of liberal interventionism. He may have a point. However, if the case of Syria is viewed
independently and dispassionately, it is clear that intervention poses serious
risks. In a country and a region that is
such a fragile tinderbox, the slightest spark could prove destructive beyond
belief. Indeed, the uprising is increasingly acquiring all of the dimensions of
a sectarian conflict, as the largely Alawite security apparatus exploits
minorities fears’ of a predominantly majority Sunni opposition. We must allow the opposition to grow in
strength and the regime to crumble from within.
This must be a time for change brought about by Syrians for Syria. In such uncertain and unstable times, what is
perhaps beyond doubt is that Assad has crossed a line from which there is no
return.
