The other side of the Syrian coin

Most world leaders are currently bristling at China and Russia’s decision to once again use their veto against the passing of a condemnatory United Nations Security Council Resolution against the Assad regime’s ruthless crackdown on dissident protesters. The US, UK and French ambassadors to the UN were unusually outspoken in the aftermath of this failed endeavor on the part of the international community to bring the Syrian government to heel.

The American Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice eschewed diplomatic-speak over the double veto, saying the “United States was disgusted. “The international community must protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality. But a couple members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant,” she said.

On the face of it, Ambassador Rice is right to be outraged. Well over 5,500 Syrian protesters have been killed and many others tortured and imprisoned, including women and children. Untold numbers have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, Libya and elsewhere. The Free Syrian Army only has access to basic weapons and is calling out for the UN to impose the kind of “no-fly zone” implemented by NATO to rid Libya of Muammar Qaddafi. In light of this unacceptable humanitarian crisis, Russia and China are coming across as the bad guys—but are they really as callous as some countries are portraying them? Or are they holding to what they perceive to be a greater imperative.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.

Firstly, do we accept that the United Nations is a world government with the right to interfere in domestic politics and militarily change regimes it doesn’t approve of? President Obama has openly called for regime change in Syria while enforced regime change is not only illegal under international law it contravenes the UN Charter. It was no secret that President George W. Bush was out to effect regime change in Iraq but in order to do so, he had to come-up with the fabricated WMD pretext. As the Russians have pointed out, pursuing a change of regime in Syria is the beginning of a slippery slope. It would set a precedent that could in the future be used against any country on earth.

Secondly, if we put ourselves in the shoes of Russian and Chinese leaders, they’ve had enough of the US and its allies militarily infringing on their geopolitical and economic spheres of interest in the region. But what’s stopping them acquiescing to a benign UNSC anti-Syrian rap on the knuckles? The problem is that they feel they were burned over similar resolutions against Iraq and Libya as those were “misinterpreted” by Western governments to be a green light for intervention.

If you recall, the US attempted to use an ambiguous resolution, Resolution 1441, for the use of force, which is disputed until today. Likewise, Libyan Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no-fly zone” and the protection of civilians was liberally interpreted by NATO and opened the door to mission creep. It could be argued that it did not allow the supply of weapons to anti-regime elements, which occurred, and it certainly didn’t sanction the presence of US/UK special forces within country that aided opposition onslaughts on pro-Qaddafi towns.

It’s worthwhile, too, analyzing the motives of the US as regards Syria. Are we seriously to believe that members of the US administration are crying into their pillows each night over the deaths of Syrian civilians, when they didn’t give a damn about hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed since the US invaded and occupied those countries? If President Obama and his team are so concerned about Syrian lives, why are they unmoved by the deaths and injuries of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis their missiles and drones kill today?

The fact is that Damascus was on Bush’s nine-country regime-change list as long ago as 2001. Bashar Assad is no saint and rather than arrogantly clinging onto power at all costs, he should read the writing on the wall and institute a speedy transition to political pluralism. However, throughout his tenure, he has supported Arab causes. He was vehemently against the 2003 Iraq War which won him no friends in Western capitals and didn’t hesitate in taking former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to task publicly during his visit to Damascus. He has also been a staunch supporter of the Palestinians and, although it’s true that the Syrian presence in Lebanon became a virtual occupation, the hospitality shown by Damascus to Lebanese refugees escaping Israel bombs in 2006 was second-to-none.

There is no doubt that the defanging of Syria is very much in the interest of the US and Israel. A Western-friendly Syria would deprive Tehran of one of its main allies. It would also cut off financial support and close weapons routes that are Hezbollah’s lifeline. Israel would benefit greatly as an enemy on its doorstep would be hobbled and, thus, the little clout the Palestinians now possess would be reduced. Of course, there are those who might think in cost-benefit terms, i.e. bolstering Israel is worthwhile provided it isolates Iran from its satellites.

Lastly, there is no effective way to gauge just how much support Assad still enjoys. He insists his country’s security forces are engaged in routing out terrorists, gangs and foreign-backed troublemakers. Given the scale of the protests, that can’t be right but, at the same time, it’s worth considering that foreign instigators might, indeed, be stirring the pot. Certainly, the Egyptian government, battling its own street violence, is of that belief which is why foreign NGOs are now being investigated. In light of the lack of hard facts, there is a possibility that any Western intervention in Syria could result in a bloody civil war.

The easiest way out is for President Bashar Assad to accept that he’s become a liability. If he’s a real patriot, as he maintains he is, then he must resign. He has too much blood on his hands to be an effective negotiator with the opposition; he should allow others to begin shaping a democratic system. Moreover, I believe it’s important for the Arab League to keep things in the family with the sovereignty and integrity of one of their own paramount. And if the humanitarian situation escalates intolerably, which I pray it doesn’t, it should be up to the Arab League and the GCC, which as a well-armed rapid reaction force, to sort it out.

I should add that while I’m solidly behind the Syrian people’s aspirations for freedom, we must resist knee-jerk conclusions and open our minds to both sides of the coin.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.