Ironically, as the entire world was watching, he demonstrated
how Syria was indeed a dictatorship as he was detailing to the parliament the
framework of his constitutional and political reforms within his own timetable,
never once calling for reconciliation or dialogue with -- or a role for -- the
opposition or even an input from his own parliament. While paying lip service to
the right of peaceful protests, he delivered thinly veiled threats that any
further destabilization in the country (read protests) would be met with an iron
fist.
As the peaceful demonstrations grew in intensity and
popularity throughout the summer and fall, Assad indeed followed up on his
threat of cracking down hard on the protesters. According to Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Human Rights Council, more than 8,500
civilians, including at least 600 children, have been killed during the Syrian
uprising. Moreover, more than 25,000 have been injured, as many as 18,000 detained
and at least 80,000 have been displaced in Turkey, Lebanon, or within Syria.
In early February, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, told the UN General Assembly to act immediately to protect the Syrian people since "The longer the international community fails to take action, the more the civilian population will suffer from countless atrocities committed against them."
In
mid-February a United Nations panel concluded that "gross human rights
violations" had been ordered by the Syrian authorities as a matter of state
policy, amounting to crimes against humanity." The panel of three investigators,
led by Paulo Pinheiro, a Brazilian professor, said the orders had come from "the
highest levels of the armed forces and the government."
But despite the massive evidence of atrocities, why has the
Assad regime's assault on its people gone unabated? What are the factors that
distinguish Syria from the other uprisings of the Arab Spring? And finally, what
are the likely scenarios of the Syrian revolt? To answer these questions one
needs first to understand the regional and international context and the players
that have a direct stake in the outcome of the Syrian conflict.
As a state at war with Israel since 1948, Syria has
historically distinguished itself as the heart of the Arab nationalist movement
and defender of its rights against foreign domination and Israeli hegemonic
power. Yet, despite its successive failures when directly confronting Israel
militarily, Syria has been very successful in facilitating much of the support
to the fierce resistance against Israeli aggression, especially in southern
Lebanon, as well as against the American military presence in Iraq as
demonstrated in its assistance to the insurgent groups against the military
occupation in the aftermath of the 2003 American invasion.
In its alliance with Iran, Syria has also played a crucial
role in opposing the Bush administration's political designs for the region,
particularly in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Furthermore,
Syria has forged a strategic alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon and has served as a
host to most Palestinian resistance groups for decades.
Whether it has chosen this path as a matter of principle or
as a bargaining chip for future negotiations -- as its critics charge -- does not
matter. It successfully fought off the Bush administration's policy in its
attempt to isolate the anti-American and anti-Israeli groups in the area. It
also played a critical role in the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon against Hezbollah
that ended in a stalemate. With Syria's help, Hezbollah has not only been able
to rebuild its arsenal with tens of thousands of rockets capable of reaching any
major population center inside Israel, but it has also been able to control the
Lebanese political theater after it toppled the government of America's allies
in Beirut, and formed another that is friendly to Syria and Iran.
Further, ever since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Syria has
been the closest strategic ally of Iran in the Arab world. This strategic
alliance has allowed Iran to wield great influence throughout the Arab world,
especially with regard to Lebanon and the Palestinian cause, the central issue
in the Arab world. In return, Syria has benefited greatly from this relationship
strategically, politically, and economically.
In addition, since the rise of Iran's Shi'ite allies in Iraq,
coupled with the defeat of the American enterprise in the region, an arc
dominated by Shi'aa and Alawite-led regimes, that extends from Iran and Iraq to
Syria and Lebanon, has been created. To the traditional pro-Western monarchies in
the region, with a substantial Shi'aa minority, this arc is considered a grave
menace threatening the status quo and the future of these regimes.
So while Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) autocratic states were tacitly but actively opposing or derailing the Arab
Spring (except Qatar for self-preservation reasons), the GCC countries are
currently at the forefront of the efforts to topple the Syrian regime in order
to primarily break the Iranian-Syrian alliance. In this context, one could
understand the efforts by the Arab League in the last few months as it attempts
to be uncharacteristically pro-active in the Syrian quagmire.
The efforts of the Arab League in the Syrian predicament, led
by the tiny state of Qatar, but vigorously supported by Saudi Arabia and the
other GCC countries, has sponsored several initiatives to resolve the crisis.
When its mission to place observers in December failed to stop the carnage of
the Syrian military against the civilian protesters, it advocated the removal of
Bashar Assad with a transitional period led by his Sunni vice president, who
would presumably ask the opposition to be part of a unity government, and to be
subsequently followed by free and democratic elections. When the Syrian
government flatly rejected this initiative, the Arab League turned in late
January to the UN Security Council for support. Ultimately, Russia and China
refused to adopt the initiative or even condemn the regime, casting their second
double veto in as many months, therefore halting the Arab initiative in its
tracks.
Russia has been the major supplier of arms to Syria as well
as its strategic ally in the region. Russian leaders are also furious since
their interests in Georgia and their concern with regard to the missile defense
shield in Europe have been ignored by the US. Russia mistakenly thought that the
US was going to accommodate it on both counts after the Security Council vote on
Libya last spring, which allowed military intervention. On the other hand, China
wanted to send a clear message that it's leery of any attempt to allow foreign
interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state as it fears its own
unrest inside the country as well as in Mongolia. Behind the scenes, Iran has
been pleading with both veto-wielding powers to bail out its strategic ally as
it prepares for its own possible showdown with Israel or Western powers
regarding its nuclear program. Iranian leaders believe the survival of the Assad
regime lessens the possibility of a military strike against their country.
Fittingly, Western countries led by the US called the Russian
and Chinese vetoes "disgusting," "shameful," "deplorable" and a "travesty" in
defiance of the 13 other nations on the Security Council that supported
the Arab initiative. But the US has no credibility in expressing its "shock" and
"outrage," given its stark hypocrisy. For decades, the US shielded Israel from
dozens of resolutions condemning its actions and demanding that it abide by
international law. Frequently, the resulting vote was 14-1, with the US casting the
sole negative vote, thus invalidating it. Or when the UN General Assembly
condemns Israeli aggression or occupation with a typical 190-2 vote, with the US
siding with Israel against the whole world. Just last September the US led the
efforts to frustrate the Palestinian attempt to gain statehood recognition in
the UN. When subsequently, Palestine was admitted as a member of UNESCO with an
overwhelming majority, the US "disgustingly" and "shamefully" withdrew from the
educational, social, and cultural organization.
But hypocrisy is not the domain of the West alone. Iran and Hezbollah, which have been very popular with the Arab masses for decades, have
also chosen strategic calculations over moral principles. Their unwavering
support for the Assad regime, despite its massacres against peaceful protesters,
has cost them dearly in the Arab street. In the case of Iran, the support was
not only political but included providing military hardware and expertise,
tear-gas canisters causing severe burns and partial paralysis for the
demonstrators, as well as providing technical assistance in communications and
in monitoring the Internet. According to a well-placed source in Damascus,
several senior members of Iran's revolutionary guards have been providing
technical expertise in command-and-control to the Syrian military onslaught
against major cities such as Homs and Hama.
More recently Ali Larijani, Iran's parliamentary speaker,
angrily admonished the leaders of the Palestinian resistance groups during their
recent visit to Tehran because, unlike Hezbollah, they were not actively and
publicly supporting the Assad regime. Shortly after, many Palestinian leaders --
including most Hamas senior cadres -- left the Syrian capital for good as their
relations with Tehran and Damascus has reached an historic low.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
