Helpless Threats?
Does it come as a surprise that the regime of Baschar al –Assad mercilessly slaughters civilians and security forces and kills - seemingly unimpressed - literally everything that moves? Like in many families, the son sees his role-model in his father and tries to act accordingly: in 1982, violent protests by the Muslim Brotherhood were remorcelessly crushed- also with the assistance of chemical weapons- in the very same city of Homs. (The cynical approach might be considered inappropraite. But such a pattern - check out North Korea, Kongo, Azerbaidjan, Armenia - is not uncommon).
Deliberately, the term „Regime of Bashar al-Assad“ is being used. But many sources claim that Assas himself has lost clout a long time ago. Moreover, he is allegedly downgraded to a simple marionette in an extremely cynical sequel of the 1982 massacre. One should not discount on it; his wife, who holds British citizenship, was allegedly already refused to leave the country by security forces.
Since the Security Council’s resolutions were being vetoed by China and the Russian Federation, helpless actionism prevails. Countless appeals asking for Assad to step down have crepitated: at the same time, exacerbated threats blew out. Sanctions imposed by the EU will only bite slowly, while some American Senators won’t exclude a military intervention. However, in the wake of the US- Presidential Campaign, it is safe to assume that these comments were soley made for domestic consumption. Who cares about the recent experiences in Afghanistan or Iraq, when votes are at stake?
Not to speak of the utterly useless „Monitoring Mission“ by the Arab League. The so-called „Syrian National Council“ has neither managed to present a coherent political action program, nor has shown to have a clear, uncontested leader.
The Russian Federation could be right: a solution must be found in accordance with Assad, not against him. Unless there was an Alawite predecessor, he won’t step down voluntarily. The Alawite minority controlls every aspect of public life, the military and security forces and the administration.
Resigning without presenting a successor that preserves the state-of-play would be a (political) suicide. 1,5 million Alawites are faced with an overwhelming Sunni majority (about 17 million). Secondly, Syria has about 3-4 million citizens that claim a different faith, among them Christians. In the end, this situation shows, that it is not about the Assad-Clan as such, but about the literal physical well-being of the Alawites.
Assad’s strongest supporter is Iran. And this enhances the political complexity. A Syrian civil war is only one side of the medal. What’s at stake is the political- as well as military- predominance in the Middle East. If Assad falls, Iran loses his most important ally in the region. But moreover, Iran loses his access to paramilitary organizations such as Hisbollah in south Lebanon. This radical entity has been a constant threat to Israel, being financed and equipped by Iran. This - by itself - is a strong argument for a change of regime in Syria.
The intricate situation is heightened by developments in Iraq. A civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is brewing. Prime Minister and Secretary General of the Islamic Dawa Party (Shiite) ,Nuri al-Maliki, was exiled to Iran under Sadam Hussein’s regime and has fought the old Baath Party’s regime actively as a resistance fighter. With the disemployment of American Forces, al Maliki was leaning heaviliy towards Iran, for political as well as economic reasons. And he is a vigorous supporter of Assad.
In other words: a political clash for predominance - or even hegemony - over the Middle East is dangerously intertwined with a fight between radical Islamic currents. Radical Sunnis and Shiites are clading the county with terrorist attacks, notably killing Muslims. This intimidating development spreads all the way from Morocco through the Middle and Far East, the Gulf States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, even till Indonesia and the Philippines. Hence, the battle for regional dominance is already in full effect between Islam’s two main currents. Currently the Suniis seem to prevail, with the Muslim Brotherhood already in power in Egypt, and Salafists gaining popularity in many materially deprived regions. Plus, they are steping in with social and welfare services when governments are failing.
When politicians, interlocutors and stakeholders from more than 60 States gathered in Tunis last February as „Friends of Syria“ to consider ways to stop the bloodshed, the conservative Gulf States and the Arab League were calling for military intervention and the distribution of weapons to insurgents. It was expected that the United States and the European Union would step in. The Saudi Foreign Minister even left the conference under protest, for he considered sanctions as „insufficient“.
Why, one might ask, do the USA and the EU not consider this option, since it has already been employed in Libya? Isn’t it a good thing when even neighbouring States with a doubtful human rights record are calling for action?
My guess: Leaving the dirty work to the allies, while harvesting the fruits of victory and eventually gaining controll over their fellow Suniis/ Muslim Brotherhood is the strategic aim behind this call for action.
Hopefully though, the EU will refrain from being lurked into this scheme. Most probably it would add fuel to the flames, leading to a large-scale escalation, far beyond a surface fire.
It’s the Arab League that must prove its added value to the international community. Europe should be aware of the consequences of wars waged under the moniker of „religion“. And we should equally be aware of how long these conflicts could possibly last.
What is in the EU’s power though is to support Kofi Annan and back him up in every possible way. Still, it wouldn’t be a first for an „Annan Plan“ to fail (remember Cyprus 2004). Compared to Syria, Europe’s economic outlook seems rosy and cosy.
(Each article reflects the personal views of the author)
Comments (0)