By: K. P. Fabian*, Eurasia Review, August 25, 2012
With the
Free Syrian Army being supplied aid by the West and the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries, the endgame for the Syrian regime has begun. Does Assad’s
exit guarantee the replacement of autocracy with democracy? What implications
will it have on regional politics?
The key
question is: When, how, and whether President Basher al-Assad will relinquish
office? He is turning 47 on September 11. He has ruled Syria since 2000. He was not
elected into office through a democratic process. He was selected by his father
who ruled for three decades after capturing power through a coup. He has no
divine right to rule.
If Assad
goes, does it mean that there will be democracy? Not necessarily. History shows
with painful clarity that it is not possible to replace dictatorship or
autocracy immediately with democracy. The French Revolution begat Napoleon. The
Russian Revolution gave rise to Lenin’s dictatorship of the proletariat followed
by Stalin’s. Even the latter’s demise did not usher in democracy.
Kofi
Annan’s six-point plan that he advanced as the joint envoy of UN and the Arab
League had no chance whatsoever of succeeding. He was chasing a mirage. Neither
the international community nor Syria
wants a negotiated settlement. Assad does not want to step down as part of a
negotiated settlement. His adversaries want him to step down even before they
sit down to talk.
It
follows that unless he can defeat his adversaries, the only possible way to end
the killing is for Assad to step down under compulsion. There is no practical
way he can defeat them. Let us send our good wishes to Annan’s successor, the
veteran Lakhdar Brahimi. It needs boundless optimism to conclude that he will
succeed.
Defections
Over 40
officials, some senior, including a Prime Minister, have defected. So far
Assad’s army and the security set-up, both dominated by his minority Alawite
sect, have stood by him, by and large. The question is: For how long? It is
beyond the means of the regime to put down the uprising. The rebels claim to
hold 60% of Aleppo,
close to the Turkish border. Their claim may or may not be accurate, but it is
clear that they hold substantial territory. The regime has resorted to aerial
bombing, so far without decisive result. The rebels, mainly the Free Syrian
Army, have reportedly resorted to using captured prisoners as suicide bombers.
The capital Damascus,
the oldest inhabited city in history, is a battlefield.
President
Obama has drawn a “red line”. He stated that there would be “enormous
consequences” if chemical agents are moved or used. The background is that last
month (July), Assad’s government announced that it had chemical weapons and
that it would use them against “external aggression”.
Intelligence
agencies of Turkey have
claimed that Syria
has 1000 tonnes of chemical agents, including sarin and mustard gas, positioned
in fifty towns and villages. The claim may or may not be true. But it is
reasonably clear that Syria
has such agents, and the intention of the reference to “external aggression”
was to threaten anyone planning such aggression. One cannot rule out the use of
chemical agents by a desperate regime facing defeat. However, the NATO has no
plans to send in troops.
Russia
and China
The
principal supporters of Assad are Russia,
China, and Iran. The first two used their veto
three times at the Security Council. Why are Russia
and China
supporting Assad? They are allergic to any international intervention to topple
dictators friendly to them. Russia
has access to the Tartus port. It has made a lot of money by supplying arms to Syria.
China
has a visceral antipathy to popular movements against established
dictatorships. Russia, China and Iran
want no intervention in Syria,
no sanctions, and no threat of action under chapter VII of the UN Charter.
They
should know that if they oppose action at the Council, action will be taken
outside the Council. That is precisely what’s happening. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
have been giving arms and money to the Free Syrian Army, while the U.S. and UK have been giving “non-lethal”
support. There have been reports that special teams from the U.S. and UK
have been training the anti-Assad forces in Turkey.
Turkey
Turkey’s role is
crucial, and over 70,000 Syrians have fled to the country. Turkey has said that it would not be able to
take in more than 100,000 and that the UN should organize a ‘safe zone’ inside Syria
across the border. Such a “safe zone” will be a ‘liberated zone’ and to prevent
Assad from bombing the area it will be necessary to declare a “no-fly zone”.
Will the U.S.
and others declare a “no-fly zone” and enforce it? What will Russia and China do in retaliation? They will
not send their airforce to Syria,
but they might fortify Syria’s
air defence system. Suppose the U.S.
or Israel was to disable the
information network of Syria
with the result that utilities such as water, telephones, and electricity, are
disrupted?
Turkey’s role is crucial
for another reason. As it has married Islam with modernity and democracy with
singular success, it can be an example for others. Turkey’s high ambitions
are reflected in the words of its Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu: “Turkey would henceforth lead the movement for
change in the Middle East. We will continue to
be the leader of this wave…There is a new Middle East.
We will be its owner, leader, and servant.”
There
are, however, constraints for Turkey
to realize its ambitions. Turkey
can be associated with the past of Ottoman domination of the region. Assad has
already played his ‘Kurdish card’ against Turkey. He withdrew forces from the
north-east border region and the Kurds have taken over local administration.
Will that turn out to be a mini ‘Kurdistan’ attracting the Kurds in Turkey
with whom the state has been waging a war for decades? Ankara
is deeply worried about the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. It has sent in its armed
forces to Iraq without
seeking permission from Baghdad
as part of ‘hot pursuit.’
Kurdish Issue
It is
useful to put the Kurdish issue in context. The most famous Kurd is Saladin,
who captured Jerusalem
in 1187 during the Crusades. When the Ottoman Empire
fell, the Kurds sought independence. The Treaty of Sevres of 1920, that ended
the war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies, specifically contained a
provision for the creation of an autonomous Kurdistan.
But it was never implemented. The Kurds found themselves in Turkey, Iran,
Syria, and Iraq. None of these states want an
independent Kurdistan. They have used Kurds as
pawns from time to time in their games against each other. In this regard, Turkey
is particularly vulnerable. It is a sad commentary on Turkey’s search for modernity that
it has so far failed to come to a Modus Vivendi with the Kurds – a failure that
casts a shadow over its ambitions to join the European Union.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar
The
support of Saudi Arabia and Qatar for regime change in Syria is slightly intriguing. They
are not democracies and it is not in their interest to see a strong democratic
wave in the Muslim world. Their main interest is to weaken Iran by toppling Assad. They want
to see a Sunni dominated regime in Syria,
which is friendly to them and not close to Iran.
We do not
know what might happen in Syria.
We can be sure, unfortunately, that more human beings will be killed. Assad
will have to go. But when? After how many more deaths?
It is sad
and sobering to recall that the United Nations was established to “save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime
brought untold sorrow to mankind.”
- Ambassador K. P. Fabian
served in the Indian Foreign Service between 1964 and 2000, and is currently
the President of AFPRO (Action For Food Production) and IGSSS (Indo-Global
Social Service Society). This article was originally by Gateway House: Indian
Council on Global Relations. [This article was provided by IDN-InDepthNews – August 24, 2012]
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Υφίσταται μετριασμός των σχολίων.
- Παρακαλούμε στα σχόλια σας να χρησιμοποιείτε ένα όνομα ή ψευδώνυμο ( Σχόλια από Unknown θα διαγράφονται ).
- Παρακαλούμε να μη χρησιμοποιείτε κεφαλαία γράμματα στη σύνταξη των σχολίων σας.