Some analysts say that the ongoing
confrontation at the United Nations Security
Council over Syria brings back memories from the
Cold War; the analogy, however, is far from
perfect. The face-off and all the bargaining that
is apparently going on under the counter is more
symptomatic of a situation where multiple players
and alliances vie for power in a free-for-all
brawl than of the bipolar world order that ended a
little over two decades ago.
The
government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
seems doomed, but its day of reckoning might take
some time to come.
Barring decisive
international action (which still seems distant),
and given the many divisions in the Syrian
opposition, it is not inconceivable that the
regime might win the military confrontation in its
current form, similar to how former Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi made a
surprising comeback early last year (prompting a
Western-led intervention that eventually led to
his demise).
However, even if he manages
to crush the opposition as it exists now
(something that is far from certain), Assad can
hardly hope to repair the economy. Widespread
poverty - even hunger - was among the leading
reasons why the protests erupted last March in the
first place; suffice it to say that the economy
has been in free-fall ever since.
Only
generous foreign assistance can help sustain Syria
right now, and the regime has never been more
isolated. The only international donor it can
count on is Iran, which itself is engaged in a
fierce confrontation with the West and is feeling
the economic weight of sanctions.
The
situation in the country is perhaps best summed up
in a conversation between a young taxi driver from
the city of Idlib and Ehsani, a Syrian-American
banker whose accounts frequently feature on the
blog of Syria expert Joshua Landis:
"What does the president have to do
to gain your support from this point?" I ask.
"It is too late. There is nothing," came the
quick response. "How long will it take for the
revolution to succeed and topple the regime?"
"Four years," came the quick response.
Naturally, I act surprised. He makes a bet with
me that it will be this long. The four years are
needed before the country is truly starving and
when even the eight-year old is forced to go
down onto the streets to join the protests.
"Only then, will the regime fall," was his
explanation. [1]
Ehsani is not the
only observer who criticizes the Syrian opposition
and its ability to bring down the regime. "A wide
range of activists and diplomats are voicing
concerns with the SNC [Syrian National Council, an
opposition government-in-exile based in Turkey],
criticizing its lack of cohesion and
effectiveness," reports Justin Vela for Foreign
Policy Magazine.
"While the majority of
them have not given up on the council, they paint
a picture of an organization out of touch with the
protesters on the ground and dominated by the
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood." [2]
Meanwhile,
a veritable fog of war has fallen over the
country, so much so that the United Nations
stopped counting the dead in January 2012
(activist groups report over 7,000 dead since the
start of the uprising). The gulf between the
government narrative and the accounts of the
opposition has grown, and it is extremely
difficult to verify any information coming out of
Syria.
Both sides allege foreign
involvement in the crisis, with the government
pointing a finger at Qatar and the West and the
opposition claiming that Iranian forces are
actively involved in the repression. Days ago, the
rebels reported capturing several Iranian
soldiers. [3]
In the past few days,
hundreds were reported dead as regime forces
launched an offensive in the capital Damascus, in
the city of Homs and elsewhere in the country,
following territorial gains by the opposition
forces last week. It seems that the army was
largely successful in driving the rebels back, [4]
despite continued claims of the opposition that it
controls large parts of the country. [5]
As a note, the Muslim Brotherhood is
clearly a major force in the opposition, even
though sweeping generalizations about the rise of
political Islam in the Sunni parts of the Middle
East may not be sufficient to explain the
opposition dynamics. We can infer bits and pieces
about these dynamics also from the erratic
behavior of the Palestinian militant organization
Hamas, which has vacillated between silence and
tacit opposition to Assad's repression (Hamas is
considered an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood,
but had also been a close ally of the Syrian
regime prior to the unrest).
At the same
time, a different kind of drama is unfolding at
the United Nations Security Council. After the
Arab League suspended its monitoring mission in
Syria over the weekend due to "the critical
deterioration of the situation", it spearheaded a
push at the council to pass a resolution
(introduced by Morocco) that calls on Assad to
step down and for a national unity government to
be formed.
Russia, backed silently by
China and other powers wary of a repeat of the
Libya intervention, is putting up stiff
resistance. In October last year, Russia and China
used their veto power at the council to shelve a
similar resolution condemning the Syrian regime.
On the one hand, Russia is fighting hard
for one of its closest remaining allies in the
Arab world, and also for its only naval base in
the Mediterranean (near the city of Tartus). It
keeps accusing the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and the Arab League of breaking
unwritten understandings on Libya and (with good
reason) of stretching the mandate of the
resolution that authorized an intervention against
Gaddafi.
It refuses to accept verbal
assurances by US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and top European diplomats that Syria is
completely different and the Libyan scenario is a
"false analogy".
This indeed brings up
memories about the Cold War status quo; yet if the
Russian position seems a bit theatrical and
forced, it is perhaps a reflection of reality. Let
us not forget, for example, that Russian Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin faces an unexpectedly
complicated presidential election in a few months,
and quite a few Russian voters feel at least a
measure of nostalgia for their country’s former
glory during Soviet times.
Moreover - and
this sheds light on claims that Russia sacrificed
Libya back in the day in order to be able to
support Syria longer - Russian leaders cannot
really ignore the outrage of the international
community forever, at least not the way their
Soviet predecessors did. Kremlin officials have
themselves hinted at this in recent interviews.
[6]
Yet just how much the world has
changed since the end of the Cold War is evident
also from the Western unwillingness to go all the
way in confronting a fellow Security Council
member. Little mention has been made so far, for
example, of United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 377 (also known as "Uniting for
Peace"), which was specifically designed by the US
to bypass a Russian veto at the Security Council
during the Korean War in the early 1950s.
Today, the administration of US President
Barack Obama and its allies seem reluctant to go
down this path, perhaps unwilling to put into
question their own veto power at the council, and
perhaps uncertain of the backing they can win at
the General Assembly for a resolution against
Syria.
Thus, amid rumors that the Syrian
opposition has offered Russia to keep its naval
base if it withdraws its support for Assad, and
speculation about the way other countries might
vote, we can expect the haggling, and the
histrionics, to continue at the United Nations on
Wednesday. Meanwhile on the ground, there are few
prospects of a let-up in the bloodshed.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
