How Do You Solve a Problem Like Syria?

Hi everyone!

So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.

I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.

Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.

Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.

There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.

So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.

Not good. Not good at all.

Ciao.

A Glimmer of Hope in Syria--The Arab League Peace Proposal

Hi everyone!

So despite the gloom and doom of some of my previous posts having to do with the ongoing democracy movement in the Arab World, there is indeed progress to report.

Yesterday was a big day in Syria, one might even go so far as to call it a turning point. We all know that the Arab League observation mission has been rather a bust. Hundreds of protesters were killed while the observer delegation kind of bumbled around the country, seeing glimpses of unrest and the government crackdown while expressing frustration that Assad's regime wasn't honoring the agreement that put the observers on the ground in the first place.

So what did the Arab League do yesterday? They unexpectedly issued a peace proposal demanding that Assad step down and begin negotiating with the opposition within two weeks. According to reports, this proposal is modeled after a similar agreement signed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, who finally left his country yesterday en route to the U.S. for further medical treatments for the burns he sustained last June in an attempt on his life. What may differentiate these two proposals, however, is that the Yemeni agreement offered Mr Saleh immunity from prosecution for war-related crimes if he agreed to step down. The Syrian proposal offers no such incentive for Assad and his cronies.

No one expects Assad to accept the proposal. He has unequivocally declared that he'll more-or-less die 'defending' his country. The reason I describe the Arab League proposal as progress is that it's the most sharply-worded response to the continued violence in Syria that we've heard from the Arab World. According to Reuters, Qatar's foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, said "We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations." Again, change in Syria is not going to happen overnight. But with this declaration from the Arab League--really the only force that has much street cred on the Arab Street--it shows that with the exception of Iran and perhaps Russia, Assad has very few allies in his corner. He'll go down fighting, but eventually he's going to have to go down.

But with the end of the Assad dynasty, who's going to replace them? Chances are, we'll be faced with a similar situation to that which is currently roiling Libya. Over there in North Africa, the opposition was a rather rag-tag group of rebels who were united only in their desire to see Qaddafi overthrown. Now that he's dead and gone, the country is on the precipice of renewed chaos because none of these rebel factions can unite behind one course of action. The same can be said of Syria. The Free Syrian Army, a militia comprised of deserters seems to be the most direct opposition Assad faces, at least in terms of boots on the ground. There is also the Syrian National Council, a more politically-oriented opposition group that when all is said and done doesn't wield all that much influence.

So what to do? Wait and see, I guess. Along with the peace proposal, the Arab League announced that the observer mission would continue, citing that some progress has been made. I have my doubts but I'd rather them stay because as ineffective as the mission might appear, they are a collective set of eyes in Assad's backyard. With a peace proposal on the table, the Arab League observers might finally have a bit more clout.

The ball is in your court, Mr. Assad. Act wisely.

Ciao.

The 'Iron Hand' of Bashar al-Assad

Hi everyone!

Surprisingly, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave an address yesterday on Syrian state television, only the fourth such appearance he's made since the resistance struggle began last March. Not surprisingly, however, was the actual content of his message. If the free world--and the majority of the Syrian people--were hoping that Mr. Assad would boldly declare an end to the government crackdown and agree to Arab League demands that he withdraw his forces and end the daily massacre, they were sorely disappointed.

Mr. Assad did no such thing. In fact, his speech gave quite the opposite message. He reiterated his long-standing (and ludicrous) assertion that foreign elements were the ones responsible for inciting the uprising and that his troops were merely acting in defense of the realm. Moreover, he vowed to crush the rebellion with "an iron hand." And as for the Arab League-sponsored observers, Mr. Assad lumped them in with the supposed foreign rabble.

What does this tell us? Well, for one it further confirms the overall ineffectiveness of the Arab League mission. While Mr. Assad ridiculed them in his speech, he did say that the observers could stay in the country until the 19th, as scheduled. Secondly, Mr. Assad's address should serve as a wake-up call to the West and the Arab League, for that matter, that more needs to be done--and now--to protect the lives of the Syrian protesters, which I suspect comprise a majority of Syria's population.

Again, the West seems to be keeping to its "wait and see" approach. I've argued against this in previous columns, but it appears the powers-that-be are more concerned with not risking the ire of Russia or China than saving innocent men, women, and children from daily slaughter. Or perhaps some are still holding out hope that Mr. Assad will back down at the eleventh hour...not likely.

It seems Mr. Assad is under the misguided belief that he needs to evoke the ruthless behavior of his father who infamously put down an Islamic rebellion in Hama in 1982 that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Syrian military. Bashar has been viewed by many as a weak leader. He was educated in the West and spent four years in London studying to become an ophthalmologist. His older brother, Basil, was originally next in line to rule but his assassination thrust Bashar to the top position. Some say Bashar is beholden to another brother, Maher, who is currently commander-in-chief of the Republican Guard.

Regardless, to the outside world, for all intents and purposes, Bashar is the guy in charge. Doesn't he realize that the use of his "iron hand" will only doom him and his cronies to a fate that will ultimately prove as ignominious as that of Muammar Qadaffi, one of his former dictatorial peers? But perhaps not. Perhaps Bashar will be allowed to remain in power as the death toll mounts and the West merely looks the other way, not wanting to be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of another country that has nothing in particular to offer because it doesn't have oil? I hate to say this, but this response isn't all that out of the question.

Ciao.

Contradiction and Continued Suppression in the Middle East

Hi everyone!

While the United States prepares for its first Republican Party caucus in Iowa tomorrow – a reflection of the democratic processes upon which the country was founded but doesn’t always follow through on – turmoil in the Middle East continues.

In Syria, the Arab League delegation continues its lame duck observer mission while more and more criticism is launched at it from within the Arab world. On Sunday, the 88-member Arab Parliament, which has no real power over the Arab League beyond serving as a voice of reason, issued a statement calling for the end of the observer mission. Rather than preventing or ending the violent suppression of Syrian protesters, if anything, the observers have inadvertently increased the intensity of the government crackdown that has killed more than 5,000 people since the start of the uprising last March and 150 reported killed since the Arab League delegation arrived last Tuesday. The suspicion is that the only reason Assad agreed to the observer mission is so he can buy more time before more stringent outside sanctions are levied against his government.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, the process of democratic oppression continued yesterday as the military-led government further justified its raids on the offices of nonprofit organizations in Cairo.  Faiza Abu El-Naga, civilian cabinet official in charge of international relations, claimed that the raids were part of an ongoing investigation into the corruption of the Mubarak regime. The groups, Ms. Naga alleges, received funding without the knowledge of the Egyptian government, which directly—according to Ms. Naga—undermines it. Whether or not anyone really believes this is anyone’s guess, but the fear is that further raids on any organization that acts independently for the betterment of human rights in Egypt will soon be stifled altogether.

Over in Bahrain, violence overwhelmed the funeral of a 15-year-old protester who was killed on Saturday by a tear gas canister—fired by government troops—that reportedly struck him in the chest.  It’s no surprise that Bahrain’s Interior Ministry has denied these accusations. I continue to find it appalling that the U.S. continues to allow such injustice to go on in Bahrain for the sake of not offending or jeopardizing relations with Saudi Arabia. This is just another example of the U.S.’s contradictory approach to Middle Eastern politics. It is all very well for the Obama administration to support the democracy movement in Libya, for example, whose former leader was a decades-long thorn in the U.S.’s side. But because the U.S. relies on the Saudis to support and promote its Middle Eastern foreign policy, it will not publicly voice support for the Bahraini protesters out of fear of disturbing U.S.-Saudi relations. While the U.S. did criticize Saudi Arabia for sending in troops to put down the initial Bahraini protests last spring, the criticism felt half-hearted and done more from a sense of obligation than genuine concern.

At any rate, it is clear that what began a year ago and evolved into the Arab Spring is still ongoing. I think 2012 will continue to bring us tremendous change, not just in the Middle East but in Russia, Europe, and the United States as well. Whether that change is for the good or for the worse, is still anyone’s guess. Regardless, I’ll be watching closely.

Ciao.