As the Arab Spring rambles onward into its second year, Syria has moved to the forefront of international attention. The al-Assad regime is apparently unfazed by the revolutions roiling around it, and clings to power with a merciless grip. As the debate over the role of The West in loosening that grip intensifies, perhaps it is wise to evaluate events past and present before we--as citizens of powerful western democracies--decide what role we want our governments to play.
If you are new to this forum, I encourage you read a few pages of another thread entitled "Libya: Another American Foreign Policy Mistake". In that thread you will find many of the knee jerk reactions of Western Liberal Democrats against the specter of a government repressing its citizens with artillery, tempered by a constant warning to proceed with caution. This thread is intended to take a step beyond such rudimentary reflexes, and look deeper into the efficacy of a moral impulse embodied by the United Nations concept of The Responsibility To Protect.
I would like to begin by posing a controversial question: If Assad eventually succeeds in crushing the uprising by flattening the city of Homs and other centers of unrest, with perhaps 30,000 civilian casualities, is this the best result that the people of Syria could hope for? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the fall of the Assad regime could lead to a human disaster on a scale that we are simply unable to imagine.
To put this question into perspective, it might be helpful to consider a contemporary example: Libya. By the time that the United Nations intervened in Libya under the aegis of "The Responsibility to Protect", the Libyan Revolution was responsible for a relatively low number of casualties, perhaps merely one or two thousand. As the responsiblity to protect eventually evolved into regime change--or, to be more precise, regime destruction--we are now faced with anarchy in Libya, and a body count that is now estimated at 20 times that original number continues to grow by the day and accelerates as tribal rivalry and warfare intensifies in the power vaccuum of a leaderless Libya. Gadaffi warned the world that he was the only obstacle to abject chaos, and he may yet prove to have been being sincere. As the casualties will undoubtedly continue to mount into the unforseeable future, how can the West claim that it acted morally when it aided in the overthrow of the Libyan government, and then abandoned the country to sort through the ensuing tumult?
The ultimate moral efficacy of the intervention in Libya can not be judged at this stage, but some have long suspicioned that it would eventually unfold into an enduring disaster. This conclusion should not be surprising when we consider the requisite components of a stable democracy, and where Libya stands in terms of that transition.
First and foremost, a country needs the stability and security generally provided by police and military. It is only in a stable environment that civil society can flourish, where a transitioning country can then evolve its economic development, independent judiciary, Parliament, and a robust private sector. These are all fundamental aspects of liberty, justice, prosperity, and the rule of law that traquil, democratic societies buttressed by a strong middle class require. In the absence of stability, the Libyan experiment with democracy may not have the necessary time to bear fruit before the society veers towards more radical or even reactionary options.
We can apply the same paradigm to Syria, as there is presently no alternative to the Baathist regime which currently reigns. The police and military are dominated by the Alawite sect of al-Assad, and are firmly entrenched with the regime. If the regime falls and a power vaccuum erupts, it could dwarf the instability of Libya by collapsing the entire Levant into civil war.
Since the capture of Gadaffi, developments in Libya have lost their dramatic appeal, and the world has refocused its attentions elsewhere. A regional war in The Levant however, will not allow you to ignore it.
It is a rare day that I would encourage you to listen to the words of Vladimir Putin uncynically, but these are extraordinary times:
A year ago the world witnessed a new phenomenon - nearly simultaneous demonstrations against authoritarian regimes in many Arab countries... People in Russia sympathized with those who were seeking democratic reform.
However, it soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force...
No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an internal Syrian reconciliation. It is important to achieve an early end to the violence no matter what the source, and to initiate a national dialogue - without preconditions or foreign interference and with due respect for the country's sovereignty. This would create the conditions necessary to introduce the measures for democratization announced by the Syrian leadership. The key objective is to prevent an all-out civil war. Russian diplomacy has worked and will continue to work toward this end.
Sadder but wiser, we oppose the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions that may be interpreted as a signal to armed interference in Syria's domestic development. Guided by this consistent approach in early February, Russia and China prevented the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.
In this context and considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.
The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous. No good can come of it. In any case, it will not help reach a settlement in a country that is going through a domestic conflict...
I hope very much that the United States and other countries will consider this sad experience and will not pursue the use of power in Syria without UN Security Council sanctions. In general, I cannot understand what causes this itch for military intervention. Why isn't there the patience to develop a well-considered, balanced and cooperative approach, all the more so since this approach was already taking shape in the form of the aforementioned Syrian resolution? It only lacked the demand that the armed opposition do the same as the government; in particular, withdraw military units and detachments from cities. The refusal to do so is cynical. If we want to protect civilians - and this is the main goal for Russia - we must make all the participants in the armed confrontation see reason.
This might be the time to listen to Putin, and be highly suspicious of complicated schemes to "stop the killing". Perhaps the most moral course of action is the one most counter-intuitive: Turn your back on the Syrian people. Abandon all expectations of an intervention, and do not give the Syrians any false hopes that NATO will arrive in gleaming armor to help them topple the regime. Let the Syrians fight for reform, but do not assist them in unleashing a regional war that will involve every nation from Israel to Iran, and every ethnic faction in The Levant.
I think that any discussion
I think that any discussion of Syria needs to begin with the historical context of the al-Assad family and the actions of Hafez al-Assad in the 1982 massacre in Hama.
The tensions that we see now are not new. Hafez Assad was a brutal authoritarian who seized power and wiped out his Bathist opposition by murder, torture, whatever means. The most violent event was Hama in 1982 where the Muslim Brotherhood was the primary target and upward of 20,000 died or were executed. I find the actions of the father to be a good prediction for the actions of the son. A son like Bashir will not want to give away the power seized so ruthlessly by his father, including the relative stability and prosperity it brought to the Alawite minority. I also find the 1982 uprising useful as evidence that the relative stability and authoritarian control of the Assad regime is not sustainable.
This should suffice as answer your question. Assad putting down the current uprising at the cost of 30,000 lives simply guarantees that we see a new uprising within a decade. No lives are saved by turning away.
The Responsibility to Protect is a relatively new concept in the security council. Although its application in Libya expanded to include an uncomfortable aspect of regime change, that does not exclude other possible actions that could create space for Red Cross / Red Crescent to look after humanitarian needs in Syria.
Supporting political pluralism and democracy is the correct position, and I think most would agree on that. The question is how best to promote those objectives while at the same time preventing civilian deaths, creating space for settling the issues as Putin has said. Ironically, I think that Russia and China need to be made responsible for their veto and initiate actions that support the high minded words. Maybe the way to do that is to threaten military action by NATO.
Brendan,I find the actions of
Brendan,
...while I tend to believe that talent skips a generation. Bashir is not the megalomaniac thug that is father was, but he did inherit a regime full of megalomaniac thugs to work with. He is an optometrist amidst gangsters, and reform will be painfully slow in that atmosphere.
...as they should. However, the Baathist have their feet to the fire, and have indeed put constitutional reform to the ballot. It appears that there will now be opposition parties in Syria, and term limits for the president. This is progress, and that is enough for 2012.
If a new uprising is occasionally required to force the Syrian elite to grant more democratic reforms every few years, then that would be the path that most democracies have followed to achieve their current social contracts.
The Syrain people have achieved about as much as they are going to get at this point. If they continue to press for more radical change, then they are going to be met with a more radical crackdown. There is no need to drive the casualties up to 30,000. We should hope that cooler heads prevail, and live to fight another day.
Now what the hell ever gave you that idea?
Jay,I just watched the
Jay,
I just watched the morning news. It seems that today the Syrian military will enter Homs and take it back, shutting down the focal point of the rebel uprising. This will be very ugly, probably a repeat of 1982, but it will also be the end of the "Arab Spring" as it concerns Syria.
There is a new resolution moving through the security council with the intent of creating a humanitarian corridor. Ironically, news of the resolution likely prompted the all out assault coming today just as the China-Russia veto began the full military bombardment of Homs. Perhaps they should negotiate in private in future.
Brendan,This will be very
Brendan,
Honestly, I hope so. I just don't have much faith that this revolt could accomplish any more than it already has. Assad was smart, and co-opted the moderates with a few constitutional changes, which, if are upheld, means the end of his reign soon and the end of one party rule in Syria. That is HUGE. He basically gutted the popular uprising by granting some democratic reforms, and what we are left with is a Sunni revolt. After he had put forth the new constitution is when he moved in to eliminate the remaining radical elements who would settle for nothing less than the fall of the regime.
Remember, the Christians, Shi'ites and Alawites are all still siding with Assad. They are looking at this uprising the way Henry, Mike and I look at "Occupy Wall Street". All we see is a bunch of jackasses who have no idea what they are doing. Many traditional Syrian opposition figures refuse to associate themselves with this rebellion.
Also, the military is still firmly behind Assad.
I don't believe that the Syrians really give a shit about what is going on in the UN. If you notice, I keep repeating a few motifs in my writing. One of them is that "The West assumes it has more control than it does".
I am going out to Colorado Bend State Park. I won't be back until Saturday.
have a nice trip. Also, the
have a nice trip.
Most of the armed insurrection are defecting soldiers by all the accounts I have read. I don't know if that can be called "firm".
Brendan,have a nice trip.
Brendan,
Thanks. I am not leaving for a few hours, so I will hang around and irritate you until then.
You are obviously talking about the "Free Syrian Army". A catchy name, but it is comprised of Sunni defectors that again do not have broad support. If you start seeing several non-Sunni generals and colonels defect to the FSA, then I will surely change my tune.
Here is a fairly shocking video of some of the fighting in Homs. If you pay attention at around the 9:10 mark, you will hear the narrator casually mention that Homs has broken up into factions, and Sunnis are not welcome outside their neighborhoods. (The cameraman is obviously crazy, as he puts himself into some very dangerous situations as he documents rooom-to-room fighting in Homs, so he gets some major respect for that. He doesn't mention what eventually happens to the government troops that were eventually overwhelmed, so something tells me that it wasn't pretty.) So, remember that the foundation of a civil war is already being laid, and think about whether or not you really want that.
You gotta dead link there
You gotta dead link there Jay. It goes to an oD "page not found" dead end.
A metafore for Open Democracy
A metafore for Open Democracy !
Lets try that link again
Lets try that link again then.
Homs Fighting
Brendan,I want to make clear
Brendan,
I want to make clear that, as an American, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the Baathist regime in Syria. After fueling Hamas and Hezbollah, supporting the lunacy of Iran, funnelling suicide bombers into Iraq, sheltering Khaled Meshaal for all these years and all the other trouble they have caused, I would delight in seeing them all hung from lamp posts. Those bums really are part of "the axis of evil". But...
I can only hope that the US State Department's thirst for vengeance is tempered by a proper consideration of unintended consequences. From the American viewpoint the role played in Libya was quite politically saavy, but any irresponsible shenanigans in Syria are going to have far more dramatic consequences that the world will look to us to resolve.
In return, I want to make
In return, I want to make clear that I don't think the United States should be directly involved here except to offer support and diplomacy in the UNSC. Turkey is better positioned to get the Red Crescent in and casualties out. Humanitarian assistance is all that matters to me, I cannot see a benefit to Syrians or the region by attacking Assad.
I just listened to aung san suu kyi talk about the practical reasons for non violence, as in Burmese struggle, and her comments about the deep and lasting damage of civil war confirmed that there can be almost no justification to cause that to happen. It was persuasive. If civil war is already happening though, and that is by no means certain in Syria, then stopping the bloodshed as fast as possible seems to be the main directive, not regime change.
some Jay thread bumping going
some Jay thread bumping going on, lol I'm surprised this one hasnt got any attention, so bump it, I shall.
I came across an interesting
I came across an interesting Guide to Syria's Opposition
Rather ominous conclusion, "Apprehensions surrounding the revolution developed because no one knows how this movement will evolve. The international community, while supportive of the opposition’s aims, fears the complications that could result from the collapse of the Assad regime. Many look at Syria and see reminders of Iraq. Others fear how a revolutionary regime in Syria would affect Kurdish identity, the security of chemical and biological weapons, Lebanese stability or even Iranian nuclear ambitions. With the country’s many sectarian divisions, revolution seems to be a recipe for disaster."
Thanks for the link, Mike.I
Thanks for the link, Mike.
I have been hearing more and more rumblings lately about how the Syrian conflict is spilling over into other nations.
Here is an article about how the Arab Gulf States are encouraging their citizens to leave Lebanon due to the deteriorating security situation.
Here is another one about Kurdish rebels stepping up their attacks against Turkey.
Spillover into Iraq.
Concerns in Saudi.
This is an article that I am leary of linking to, because it is written by an Islamophobe, but it does make a few good points about how the Western press is romanticizing the Syrian revolution.
To my eyes, it looks like the shit is hitting the fan, and anyone deeply concerned with the human condition is going to be traumatized for life over the Syrian chapter of the Arab Spring.
Appreciate the additional
Post new comment