Syria's Unfolding Tragedy: What Can Be
Done? Kofi Annan's Plan That Was Doomed From Day One
08 June 2012By Alon
Ben-Meir
As the carnage in
Syria continues, the powers that are capable of taking
serious measures to stop it are busy finding excuses
to explain their collective ineptitude. Meanwhile, the
Syrian people are paying with their blood day in and
day out while the international community is
shamelessly hiding behind UN envoy Kofi Annan's plan
that was doomed from day one. Since the Syrian
government "accepted" the plan a month ago, at least
1,000 Syrians have been killed and thousands more have
been displaced. The Arab League (AL), the United
States, the European Union and Turkey, who in
particular can collectively stop Assad's killing
machine, still pin down their hopes on a plan that
Assad has, with impunity, already turned into yet
another mockery of the international community.
For obvious reasons, Kofi Annan would like to believe
that his plan can still work, but this wishful
thinking is like trying to resuscitate a dead man and
hoping for a miracle. His insistence on giving the
plan more time does nothing but play into Assad's
hands. Meanwhile, the death toll is mounting while
preventing other potentially more viable options from
being tested. All scenarios of Annan's plan are
leading to failure. As the previous (and futile) AL
observers' mission indicated, Assad is repeating the
practice he has excelled at thus far – stopping the
aggression against peaceful demonstrators when the
observers are around and resuming the killing once
they have left. In a country like Syria that comprises
an area of 185 thousand square kilometers and is
populated by 23 million people, this tactic could
easily be maintained even if the number of UN
observers is increased ten-fold to the 300 observers
that France desires.
At the same time, Assad's clique shrewdly realizes the
limitations and constraints of an international
military intervention. Assad knows that in the midst
of presidential elections, and having just concluded
one war in Iraq and still fighting another in
Afghanistan, the United States will not risk military
intervention in another Middle East conflict unless
large-scale massacres are committed. For that reason,
the Assad regime is regulating how many people should
be killed per day, a number that varies between 50 and
100, in order not to trigger an intervention.
Moreover, he understands that no Arab country has the
military muscle or the will to intervene militarily
including Egypt, which in any case is marred in its
own turmoil. Assad has further calculated that the
fractured nature of the Syrian opposition makes it
unlikely for the AL and the international community to
arm the rebels, out of concern that Syria will be torn
apart and fall into an al-Qaeda-led prolonged
sectarian conflict that might well spread to Lebanon,
Turkey, Jordan, or Iraq. Alas, his calculations seem
to be working as he continues to defy the
international community with impunity. In the midst of
all the ongoing slaughter, Assad is proceeding with
parliamentary elections, adding insult to the national
injury.
For these reasons other options must be explored,
provided they are executed in concert to have a
greater and more immediate effect. Iraq can provide a
basis for changing the dynamic, especially because
Baghdad has a vested interest in stabilizing its own
neighborhood. Due to a confluence of unique
circumstances, including holding the presidency of the
AL, retaining the ability to provide vast material
resources, occupying a unique geostrategic position
between Syria and Iran, hosting the upcoming talks on
Iran's nuclear program, and filling the absence of
Egyptian or Saudi leadership while enjoying a greater
influence on the Assad regime than any other Arab
country, Iraq can play a pivotal role to diffuse the
crisis in Syria.
Finally, the Arab states should remember that Iraq has
a strong desire to return to the Arab fold and be
embraced by it. Indeed, Iraq's Arab nationalism will
trump its sectarian divide and its present Shiite
affinity to Iran. For these reasons Iraq should be
encouraged to play a role that no other state within
the AL can currently perform. The Arab states should
also bear in mind that the greater and faster the
integration of Iraq back into the Arab fold, the
greater the distance will be created between Iraq and
Syria from Iran.
Iraq, as president of the AL, can call for new summit
meetings and introduce a resolution that offers a safe
passage and refuge for Assad and his cohorts. In so
doing, the Syrian people would look to Iraq as a
positive neighbor, rather than one that allowed the
sectarian conflict to continue unabated. If the AL
officially endorsed such a plan, it could provide at
least a plausible opportunity for Assad to consider,
although perhaps not immediately. But given the fact
that even under the most far-fetched, ideal scenario
where Assad faithfully abides by the cease-fire and
creates a space for non-violent protests to re-emerge,
there is still no way out. The shooting at peaceful
demonstrators that killed four students at Aleppo
University strongly suggests that the Assad regime has
no intention of allowing peaceful demonstrations as
required by Annan's plan. Assad and his lieutenants
recognize that however peaceful future protests may
be, the protesters will still demand, along with
political reforms, accountability for the thousands of
Syrian people killed and tortured by Assad's forces.
If justice is not served, revenge killing will be
extracted. They further know that there is already bad
blood and will have to fight to the finish simply
because they are fighting for their own lives, which
at one point in the near future may make safe passage
an attractive option.
Assad will not opt for this option at this juncture
unless mounting pressure is brought to bear on his
regime. This is where the US can make a significant
difference. Frustrated with the Annan plan but
constrained by a presidential election, President
Obama is more than likely to rule out any direct
military intervention. That said, the US still has a
responsibility to ratchet up the pressure by resorting
to truly crippling sanctions and encouraging others
(in particular the European Union and the Arab states)
to act accordingly. The current sanctions, including a
ban on overseas travel by Syrian senior government
officials, are important but not effective enough to
have a real impact. Instead, strict financial
sanctions should target Assad and his government and
military leaders. In addition to the Central Bank of
Syria, the US should target the commercial Bank of
Syria and other financial institutions while
continuing to provide the opposition with
communications gear and much-needed intelligence,
logistical support, and medical and other non-lethal
equipment.
Russia and China, which have earlier vetoed UN
Security Council resolutions on Syria, may now change
their positions. Vladimir Putin, who has just assumed
the presidency, might have good reason to shift
Russia's policy toward the Assad regime. Frustrated
with Assad's devious maneuverings, increasingly
concerned over Russia's standing in the eyes of the
Arab world, and coupled with his personal ambitions to
appear as the peace maker, Putin might move to
sacrifice Assad while still preserving Russia's
strategic interest in Syria. That is why the US must
now explore this possibility while encouraging the
Syrian National Council (SNC) to reach an
understanding with Moscow, according to which the
latter's strategic interest in the "new Syria,"
especially Russia's naval base in the Syrian
Mediterranean port of Tartous, would be respected. In
return, Russia would show its support of a new UN
Security Council resolution that would condemn the
Assad regime and call for his departure. China,
revealing that it is already wavering as it has called
on the Syrian government to respond to Annan's plan
and is expressing deep concerns over the continuation
of violence and conflict, may well follow suit.
Should all of these efforts fail it will then be
absolutely critical to resort to the Benghazi solution
– a la Libya. What is crucial here is the idea of
carving out a sizeable portion of Syrian territory
along the Turkish borders to serve as a safe haven for
refugees and offering a base for the military
defectors to re-group and launch military operations
against Assad's forces. To this end Turkey is a
central player. Ankara is extremely concerned over the
deteriorating conditions in Syria. With the moral and
semi-legal support of the AL and with logistical
support from the EU and the US, Turkey might well come
to the conclusion that this last option would entail
considerably less risks than allowing the situation to
unfold into uncontrollable chaos. The aim is to impose
a no-fly zone over northern Syria bordering Turkey. No
air strikes should be conducted against Syrian targets
unless the Syrian air force threatens the protected
"Free Syria" zone. The SNC would be based in this
zone, creating a new governing authority and preparing
to take over as a transitional government.
There is no easy solution to the Syrian debacle and
the Annan plan has now become an obstacle rather than
a plan that provides a solution to the conflict. Short
of exploring these options immediately, a full scale
civil war will certainly erupt, leaving trails of
blood behind while the international community
continues to shamelessly hide behind Kofi Annan's plan
that was dead on arrival.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments