Saturday, 25 February 2012

Syria: The Question of Intervention


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.   


No comments:

Post a Comment