Hi everyone!
It's been a while since I've written about current events...and I've missed it. I just couldn't let the ever-evolving situation in Syria continue without saying something about it today, especially in light of yesterday's bombing in Damascus.
So all the pundits are saying how this latest event which killed Bashar's brother-in-law and deputy chief of staff Asef Shawkat; his minister of defense Dawoud Rajha; and former minister of defense and military adviser Hassan Turkmani, is going to be the defining event in the conflict, the point at which the Assad regime and its cronies and sycophants have no choice but to step down. One can only hope that this assessment proves to be true. Unfortunately, however, I can't help but be strongly skeptical.
The effects of the Arab Spring are still being felt. Only time will tell how these fledgling democratically-elected governments are going to pan out over time. Despite the election of Brotherhood-backed Morsi in Egypt, the country still remains locked in a battle of wills between parliament and the military counsel. In Libya last week, the people appeared to reject political Islam in favor of a more socially liberal leader, thus bucking the trend for the region. In Bahrain, protests continue, though they have been somewhat stymied by Saudi Arabian and covert American influence. Iraq continues to find its way and despite a string of recent bombings, the future is looking brighter there than it has for close to a decade. Iran remains a constant irritant and if it is indeed behind yesterday's Israeli-targeted bus bombing in Bulgaria, one can only surmise how Israel will react. The Palestinians continue to struggle for unity and a defined homeland. Israel's unlikely and short-lived Likud-Kadima coalition government collapsed due to conflict over the ultra-Orthodox conscription issue.
And then there is Syria. Kofi Annan continues to push a pipe dream while the country further devolves into civil war. The U.S. and its allies do little but shake their collective fingers and say "Bad, bad Bashar." Of course, Russia remains the sticking point. Putin and his cronies seem hell-bent on maintaining their only position of influence in the Middle East despite the fact that pretty soon Putin's BFF in Damascus may no longer be around. It really is only a matter of time. If I were Putin--and I'm certainly glad I'm not, but let's pretend--if I were Putin, I'd offer Bashar and his immediate entourage asylum in Moscow in exchange for a handover of power to a transitional Friends of Syria-backed government. The jury is out on whether the Syrian rebels can coalesce into a cohesive, unified entity and it is still anyone's guess whether a greater Alawite-Sunni bloodbath can be avoided, but I don't see another feasible alternative. In a perfect world, Bashar and his cronies shouldn't escape prosecution, but if a relative peace can be established by keeping him alive with some dignity intact and granting him comfortable exile in Russia, maybe it's worth a shot.
It's your decision, Mr. Putin. The ball is in your court. In the long run, what have you got to lose except your best friend in the Arab world? You don't really want that, do you?
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Bashar al-Assad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bashar al-Assad. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Putin and Assad: Best Friends Forever
Hi everyone!
So in a bid to prove his legitimacy, Bashar al-Assad held elections of a sort yesterday. The Syrian people voted on a referendum of changes to the government that Mr. Assad believes proves that he is indeed reform-minded. The referendum includes changes that are supposed to shift the monopolistic hold on power currently enjoyed by the ruling Baathist Party. For the first time, presidential term limits are being introduced. According to this referendum, the Syrian president is now limited to two terms at seven years a pop. Lest anyone think Mr. Assad is planning to cede power any time soon, these new term limits don't actually go into effect until 2014 which is when his current term expires. This means that Mr. Assad can potentially remain in power for another two terms. This is reform in name only.
As one might expect, voter turnout was high in Damascus and Aleppo, both of which are bastions of support for Assad. Meanwhile in the embattled city of Homs, the polls--understandably--weren't exactly teeming. Nor were they in other locations around the country despite the images and messages broadcast by Syrian state television that declared the vote was truly a step toward Syrian democracy.
I don't think anyone was fooled. As the votes trickled in, the bombs continued to blast Homs to mere rubble while the so-called Friends of Syria alliance tried to figure out how to bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table without the support of Russia.
And speaking of Russia...
This morning it was announced that a major assassination plot against Vladimir Putin was foiled. The thing is, this isn't exactly breaking news as the plot was uncovered last month but was only made public today. Apparently it involved the rebel leader of Chechnya and suicide bombers set to disrupt the election process later this week. It isn't just the Syrians who are going to the polls. Vladimir Putin is set to win back the presidency on March 4th. The election, of course, is a mere formality. Of course, whether or not there really was plot against Mr. Putin's life is almost irrelevant. It's all in the timing. Reveal to the Russian public just days before an election that their leader successfully thwarted an assassination attempt, the people are supposed to believe that they need Putin's strength in the face of outside elements that are poised to attack the Russian heartland. Therefore, it's almost unpatriotic not to "vote" for him.
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Syria and Russia: best friends forever. Both are corrupt. Both need the other to 'legitimize' their hold on power. Both see themselves as besieged by foreign aggressors who would dare to disrupt their delusional little fairy tales. Both hold elections (of a sort) that seek to prove they have the support of their people. As farcical as it seems, they're doing a fairly good job staving off the rest of the rational world. Hopefully, it'll only be a matter of time before the cracks really start to show.
Ciao.
So in a bid to prove his legitimacy, Bashar al-Assad held elections of a sort yesterday. The Syrian people voted on a referendum of changes to the government that Mr. Assad believes proves that he is indeed reform-minded. The referendum includes changes that are supposed to shift the monopolistic hold on power currently enjoyed by the ruling Baathist Party. For the first time, presidential term limits are being introduced. According to this referendum, the Syrian president is now limited to two terms at seven years a pop. Lest anyone think Mr. Assad is planning to cede power any time soon, these new term limits don't actually go into effect until 2014 which is when his current term expires. This means that Mr. Assad can potentially remain in power for another two terms. This is reform in name only.
As one might expect, voter turnout was high in Damascus and Aleppo, both of which are bastions of support for Assad. Meanwhile in the embattled city of Homs, the polls--understandably--weren't exactly teeming. Nor were they in other locations around the country despite the images and messages broadcast by Syrian state television that declared the vote was truly a step toward Syrian democracy.
I don't think anyone was fooled. As the votes trickled in, the bombs continued to blast Homs to mere rubble while the so-called Friends of Syria alliance tried to figure out how to bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table without the support of Russia.
And speaking of Russia...
This morning it was announced that a major assassination plot against Vladimir Putin was foiled. The thing is, this isn't exactly breaking news as the plot was uncovered last month but was only made public today. Apparently it involved the rebel leader of Chechnya and suicide bombers set to disrupt the election process later this week. It isn't just the Syrians who are going to the polls. Vladimir Putin is set to win back the presidency on March 4th. The election, of course, is a mere formality. Of course, whether or not there really was plot against Mr. Putin's life is almost irrelevant. It's all in the timing. Reveal to the Russian public just days before an election that their leader successfully thwarted an assassination attempt, the people are supposed to believe that they need Putin's strength in the face of outside elements that are poised to attack the Russian heartland. Therefore, it's almost unpatriotic not to "vote" for him.
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Syria and Russia: best friends forever. Both are corrupt. Both need the other to 'legitimize' their hold on power. Both see themselves as besieged by foreign aggressors who would dare to disrupt their delusional little fairy tales. Both hold elections (of a sort) that seek to prove they have the support of their people. As farcical as it seems, they're doing a fairly good job staving off the rest of the rational world. Hopefully, it'll only be a matter of time before the cracks really start to show.
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why the West Needs to Get Its Act Together About Syria
Hi everyone!
While I am certainly not a warmonger and I believe that the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a serious misstep in foreign policy that has thoroughly messed up the U.S. approach to the Middle East, it is unconscionable to allow the devastation that's occurring hourly in Syria to go on any longer. I understand the West's reluctance to intervene militarily as it comes so shortly after the debacle that was Iraq. However, as the U.S. and its European and Arab League allies continue to dither on whether or not to put forces on the ground in Syria or to, at the very least, arm the Syrian opposition, the massacre continues without any sign of Assad backing down or halting the violence of his own volition.
It's painfully obvious that anything less than overt aggression is not going to work. The world should have learned its lesson back in December when the well-intentioned Arab League observer mission crashed and burned. What was the result? Pro-Assad forces ramped up their bloody campaign and killed multitudes without batting an eye. The observers had their hands tied as they were under the constant supervision of Assad loyalists.
Then just last month we saw the the failure of the United Nation Security Council's resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to a vice president as a precursor to new elections. What happened then? Russia, China, and India vetoed the resolution because they were more concerned with preserving their business interests in Syria than saving lives. (And of course in the case of Russia, it didn't want to be seen condoning anything that reeked of regime change because its in the midst of its own contentious election drama.) As a result, Assad saw this as something akin to an endorsement for his brutality. Ever since, he's amplified his tactics by laying unrelenting siege to the city of Homs.
Last week the United Nations General Assembly put the same resolution to a vote. It passed but again without Russian support, the resolution was rendered more symbolic than anything. So now we have another meeting to talk about Syria scheduled for Friday in Tunis that brings together a new government body called the Friends of Syria. China hasn't said whether it's going to attend while Russia, not surprisingly, has said it wouldn't be sending any delegates. Instead, according to reports in today's New York Times, Russia has sent a couple war ships to its port in Tarsis, on the Syrian coast. There were reports yesterday that Iran had done something similar, but the veracity of this remains unproven.
So amidst all this international handwringing and committee-organizing, it appears that the opposition movement within Syria is becoming more and more splintered. Military experts and terrorism analysts claim that there's a strong possibility that al Qaeda has moved into Syria from Iraq and is fighting on behalf of the insurgency, which certainly makes the situation all the muddier. And all the while, men, women, and children who want nothing more than a better life and personal freedom are being slaughtered with impunity.
If we're not ready to put troops on the ground, we can be arming the opposition. We can put covert operatives within Damascus. We can (and should) be helping the Free Syrian Army come together in a cohesive and united form that stands a chance of effectively beating back the government forces. We also should be working with exiled Syrian political groups and politicians to build a platform upon which a new post-Assad government can be developed. It's not going to happen overnight as Assad does command strong loyalty among the armed forces, his Alawite clan, and the Christian minority. But we need to lay the foundation for a Syria without Assad. As I've written here before, we'd be killing two birds with one stone: 1) getting rid once and for all of another brutal dictator and 2) cutting off Iran's conduit both militarily and logistically to Hamas and Hezbollah, its proxy threats in the region.
The alternative? The genocide of an entire population, the continued strengthening of Iran, and yet another haven from which al Qaeda can export its hate and violence to the rest of the world.
You choose.
Ciao.
While I am certainly not a warmonger and I believe that the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a serious misstep in foreign policy that has thoroughly messed up the U.S. approach to the Middle East, it is unconscionable to allow the devastation that's occurring hourly in Syria to go on any longer. I understand the West's reluctance to intervene militarily as it comes so shortly after the debacle that was Iraq. However, as the U.S. and its European and Arab League allies continue to dither on whether or not to put forces on the ground in Syria or to, at the very least, arm the Syrian opposition, the massacre continues without any sign of Assad backing down or halting the violence of his own volition.
It's painfully obvious that anything less than overt aggression is not going to work. The world should have learned its lesson back in December when the well-intentioned Arab League observer mission crashed and burned. What was the result? Pro-Assad forces ramped up their bloody campaign and killed multitudes without batting an eye. The observers had their hands tied as they were under the constant supervision of Assad loyalists.
Then just last month we saw the the failure of the United Nation Security Council's resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to a vice president as a precursor to new elections. What happened then? Russia, China, and India vetoed the resolution because they were more concerned with preserving their business interests in Syria than saving lives. (And of course in the case of Russia, it didn't want to be seen condoning anything that reeked of regime change because its in the midst of its own contentious election drama.) As a result, Assad saw this as something akin to an endorsement for his brutality. Ever since, he's amplified his tactics by laying unrelenting siege to the city of Homs.
Last week the United Nations General Assembly put the same resolution to a vote. It passed but again without Russian support, the resolution was rendered more symbolic than anything. So now we have another meeting to talk about Syria scheduled for Friday in Tunis that brings together a new government body called the Friends of Syria. China hasn't said whether it's going to attend while Russia, not surprisingly, has said it wouldn't be sending any delegates. Instead, according to reports in today's New York Times, Russia has sent a couple war ships to its port in Tarsis, on the Syrian coast. There were reports yesterday that Iran had done something similar, but the veracity of this remains unproven.
So amidst all this international handwringing and committee-organizing, it appears that the opposition movement within Syria is becoming more and more splintered. Military experts and terrorism analysts claim that there's a strong possibility that al Qaeda has moved into Syria from Iraq and is fighting on behalf of the insurgency, which certainly makes the situation all the muddier. And all the while, men, women, and children who want nothing more than a better life and personal freedom are being slaughtered with impunity.
If we're not ready to put troops on the ground, we can be arming the opposition. We can put covert operatives within Damascus. We can (and should) be helping the Free Syrian Army come together in a cohesive and united form that stands a chance of effectively beating back the government forces. We also should be working with exiled Syrian political groups and politicians to build a platform upon which a new post-Assad government can be developed. It's not going to happen overnight as Assad does command strong loyalty among the armed forces, his Alawite clan, and the Christian minority. But we need to lay the foundation for a Syria without Assad. As I've written here before, we'd be killing two birds with one stone: 1) getting rid once and for all of another brutal dictator and 2) cutting off Iran's conduit both militarily and logistically to Hamas and Hezbollah, its proxy threats in the region.
The alternative? The genocide of an entire population, the continued strengthening of Iran, and yet another haven from which al Qaeda can export its hate and violence to the rest of the world.
You choose.
Ciao.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Why Assad Needs to Be Stopped: Videos from Homs, Syria
Hi everyone!
While the world dithers on what to do with the ever-increasing violence in Syria--including a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that passed yesterday 137-12 votes, with 17 abstentions--I've included here a series of videos that portray the situation in Homs, Syria as it appears on the ground. The videos are graphic but they should be a reminder that we cannot continue to allow Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people. It is simply inexcusable. Innocent children are dying and for what purpose?
Ciao.
While the world dithers on what to do with the ever-increasing violence in Syria--including a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that passed yesterday 137-12 votes, with 17 abstentions--I've included here a series of videos that portray the situation in Homs, Syria as it appears on the ground. The videos are graphic but they should be a reminder that we cannot continue to allow Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people. It is simply inexcusable. Innocent children are dying and for what purpose?
Ciao.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, January 23, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Syria and the Arab League--a Diplomatic Travesty
Hi everybody! Hope y'all had a good weekend.
Lots of interesting developments in the news today, not the least of which is the fact that the Arab League voted over the weekend to increase the number of observers in Syria from its existing 165 to 300. I'm still not sold on the effectiveness of this mission--the first of its kind from the Arab League--due to the fact that the number of people killed seems to increase with each passing day, another 15 just yesterday, despite the observers' presence. The numbers of dead keep mounting. The current estimate is already at about 6,000, which is more than the number of U.S. soldiers dead in almost ten years in Iraq.
The mission is due to wrap on January 19th, just 10 days from today, with a report on whether or not Assad's regime has complied to the Arab League mandate. As I've indicated before, I am extremely skeptical of this whole mission. I just don't see how things are going to change. Assad's brutal crackdown of the Syrian people has been going on for almost a year now. What's changed? How are the protesters being helped by the Arab League? Government forces are still killing innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Homs and Hama with an alarming hubris. The Syrian army escorts the observers, making sure to steer them clear of any hotspots. I don't know, but when that report is issued on the 19th, I'd be surprised if it offers more than a perfunctory slap on Assad's wrist. Then what happens?
What particularly irks me is the fact that because of Russia and China, the U.S. and/or NATO is not considering airstrikes like they did in Libya, which had a proven rate of success. I could be wrong but from a strategic standpoint, Syria has a helluva lot more influence in that part of the world than Libya under Qaddafi ever did...and is a much greater menace. Syria essentially rules Lebanon by proxy through Hizbullah..it's agents are reputed to have been responsible for the car bomb assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, not to mention the fact that Damascus has served as the main base of operations for Hamas, though the latter is said to be distancing itself from the Assad administration while it seeks greater international legitimacy.
While I believe that countries should be allowed to govern themselves without the participation of occupying forces, something has to be said for at least some outside assistance when and where it's due. Nation-building doesn't work--just look at the fiasco that was (and increasingly continues to be) Iraq. But in Syria's case, from an international perspective, relying solely on the dubious word of Arab League observers (however well-intentioned), headed by a Sudanese general with a proven history of human rights abuses, is like the blind leading the blind. And once the Arab League mission ends on the 19th and the observers pack up and go home, what's to stop Mr. Assad from furthering his reign of terror?
Please, people, don't let Syria be the final word on the Arab Spring.
Ciao.
Lots of interesting developments in the news today, not the least of which is the fact that the Arab League voted over the weekend to increase the number of observers in Syria from its existing 165 to 300. I'm still not sold on the effectiveness of this mission--the first of its kind from the Arab League--due to the fact that the number of people killed seems to increase with each passing day, another 15 just yesterday, despite the observers' presence. The numbers of dead keep mounting. The current estimate is already at about 6,000, which is more than the number of U.S. soldiers dead in almost ten years in Iraq.
The mission is due to wrap on January 19th, just 10 days from today, with a report on whether or not Assad's regime has complied to the Arab League mandate. As I've indicated before, I am extremely skeptical of this whole mission. I just don't see how things are going to change. Assad's brutal crackdown of the Syrian people has been going on for almost a year now. What's changed? How are the protesters being helped by the Arab League? Government forces are still killing innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Homs and Hama with an alarming hubris. The Syrian army escorts the observers, making sure to steer them clear of any hotspots. I don't know, but when that report is issued on the 19th, I'd be surprised if it offers more than a perfunctory slap on Assad's wrist. Then what happens?
What particularly irks me is the fact that because of Russia and China, the U.S. and/or NATO is not considering airstrikes like they did in Libya, which had a proven rate of success. I could be wrong but from a strategic standpoint, Syria has a helluva lot more influence in that part of the world than Libya under Qaddafi ever did...and is a much greater menace. Syria essentially rules Lebanon by proxy through Hizbullah..it's agents are reputed to have been responsible for the car bomb assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, not to mention the fact that Damascus has served as the main base of operations for Hamas, though the latter is said to be distancing itself from the Assad administration while it seeks greater international legitimacy.
While I believe that countries should be allowed to govern themselves without the participation of occupying forces, something has to be said for at least some outside assistance when and where it's due. Nation-building doesn't work--just look at the fiasco that was (and increasingly continues to be) Iraq. But in Syria's case, from an international perspective, relying solely on the dubious word of Arab League observers (however well-intentioned), headed by a Sudanese general with a proven history of human rights abuses, is like the blind leading the blind. And once the Arab League mission ends on the 19th and the observers pack up and go home, what's to stop Mr. Assad from furthering his reign of terror?
Please, people, don't let Syria be the final word on the Arab Spring.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)