23 March 2012 By Osman Mirghani The scenes of killings and destruction coming out
from Syria, and the images of refugees fleeing
battles, are frustrating and saddening, particularly
in light of the international paralysis towards the
crisis in Syria, which the al-Assad regime has taken
as a green-light to escalate its military campaign
against the uprising. The regime seems indifferent to
the rising death toll and the massive destruction
caused by its military ordinances, using these to
target civilians rather than to recapture the occupied
Golan Heights, despite its slogans of resistance.
These scenes of deplorable conditions in Syria, armies
being misused to oppress their own people and the
exploitation of Arab bloodshed are more than enough to
get the blood boiling; however this is not counting
the frustrating political chess-game that is being
played over Syria and this crisis. Let us look at, for example, the position taken by
NATO, which announced that it would not intervene in
Syria even if a UN resolution is issued in this
regard. Or let us look at the fierce criticism
levelled by Washington, London and Paris towards
Russia and China for using their veto to obstruct the
issuance of a Security Council resolution endorsing
the Arab League initiative on Syria. If the Russian -
Chinese veto was interpreted as a green light by the
Syrian regime to escalate its military assaults on
cities and citizens, then the statement by NATO
Secretary-General [Anders Fogh Rasmussen] will also
have served to reassure the Syrian regime that the
most it will face is sanctions, denouncement and
condemnation, and that the Syrian president will
neither face the same fate as the Gaddafi regime or
Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. The NATO Secretary-General's position was not
discordant, rather this was in harmony with the
stances adopted by the majority of Western capitals,
including Washington and London, which are both
leading the campaign of denouncement against al-Assad
and calling for sanctions on his regime, but have
nevertheless ruled out military intervention. Indeed
they have even objected to the idea of arming the
Syrian opposition on the pretext that this would
result in more weapons being involved in the
confrontation and would not necessarily lead to the
overthrow of the Syrian regime which possesses an
immense arsenal of weapons, something that ensures the
balance of power is in its favour. These Western
capitals have also warned that the situation in Syria
may possibly slide towards civil war should arms flow
to these opposition groups, which the west persists in
saying are not unified and incapable of active
coordination and effective arms control in a manner
that would reassure all components of Syrian society.
Arguments such as this fail to provide a solution
for the Syrian people who continue to suffer under the
regime's escalating suppression. Indeed, arguments
such as this appear weak and meaningless when we hear
Washington speaking of Iran's escalating support of
the al-Assad regime, assisting Damascus to quell the
uprisings that is threatening its rule. This is not to
mention the reports of Russian arms arriving in
Damascus. Will we continue to allow this regime to
enjoy the support of its allies, whilst we prevent
support from reaching the Syrian opposition, all the
while killing of Syrian civilians and destruction of
Syrian cities remains on-going? When Western states, mainly the US, Britain and
France, sought to topple the Gaddafi regime, they did
not object to the Libyan opposition being armed,
indeed they led the NATO operations to destroy
Gaddafi's battalions, as well as providing material
support and assistance to the Libyan revolution,
thereby enabling the toppling of the Gaddafi regime.
Some people may argue that Western states had played
up the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, using
this as a cover for the NATO air strikes; however the
Security Council has failed to issue any resolution on
the Syrian crisis thanks to Russia and China's veto.
In fact, the Western campaign against Moscow and
Beijing is part of the political tug-of-war over
international interests. This is because even if the
positions of the two sides differ in terms of motives
and objectives, both sides ultimately reject the
option of military intervention in the Syrian crisis.
Washington and London do not want military
intervention, perhaps because they are taking Israel's
interests into consideration and are concerned about
its fears of possible security unrest along its border
with Syria. As for Russia and China, they feel
deceived by the [Security Council] resolution on
Libya, which the West used as a cover for its military
campaign, whilst they also do not want to appear
powerless before the West on the international arena.
In this regard, we must indicate that Moscow's claim
that it is against using the UN as a tool to intervene
in the internal affairs of countries for the sake of
regime change is nothing more than political rhetoric.
This is because Moscow previously and continues to
interfere in the internal affairs of its neighbouring
countries, carry out military and security operations
in some of these countries and even taking action to
topple their regimes. The Western campaign against the stances adopted by
Russia and China on Syria – and their veto of the UN
Security Council resolution – was not free from
political exploitation, for this campaign is intended
to place all the blame for the international paralyses
on these two countries, hence holding them solely
accountable for obstructing solutions to the Syrian
crisis. This, however, is meant to draw the world's
attention away from the fact that the Western states'
position has also contributed to increasing the Syrian
people's sufferings, particularly as when Damascus
hears explicit statements rejecting military
intervention and the arming of the opposition, this
encourages it to escalate its military campaign. If
the West really wanted to intervene, it would not have
allowed the Russian-Chinese veto to prevent it, as it
did when it intervened in the crisis of what was then
Yugoslavia. In March 1999, the US, Britain and France
carried out a three-month aerial campaign against the
Serbian President Milosevic's regime, without needing
a Security Council resolution, as Russia and China had
also rejected military intervention in that case.
Washington, London and Paris justified the NATO
operations as humanitarian intervention to prevent the
crimes of forced expulsion and ethnic cleansing
against Kosovo's Albanian community. This forced the
Milosevic regime to end its military operations and
withdraw its troops from Kosovo. The NATO operations
continued until Milosevic was forced to withdraw, and
nevertheless, he was not safe from legal pursuit on
charges of committing war crimes. He faced
international boycott and pressure that caused
large-scale demonstrations to be renewed until he was
eventually toppled from power and was handed in to the
International Criminal Court in The Hague; he died in
prison before his trial concluded. This is the game of interests, the international
political chess-game, which the Syrian people today
are paying the price for. It has allowed the Syrian
regime to continue to massacre its own people whilst
the word is reluctant to arm the Syrian opposition and
unable to prevent the killing and destruction.
Comments 💬 التعليقات |