It is
widely acknowledged that even in the jungle where common sense is not common to
common creatures, there is always a way of getting order maintained. There can
thus be no reason or excuse whatsoever why for more than four years of devastating
chaotic situations in Syria, international community is still struggling to
find anything close to order in that country which used to be one of the
prospering nations in the middle east.
Before the
outbreak of the ‘non-peaceful’ protest which metamorphosed into a full-blown ‘armed
rebellion’ against the existing establishment and President Assad’s regime in
2011, a major challenge facing Syria was some kind of entrenched dictatorship
and lack of deep democratic governance. It was, therefore, in the right
direction of those Syrians who were calling for democratic reforms much so in
order that they would consolidate the socio-economic and political gains the
country had made over the years.
In light of
socioeconomic development which President Bashar al-Assad was advancing and
political reforms he was engineering as against his predecessors, this
particular challenge of low level democratic credentials could have been
described as a less severe challenge. This may not have required such a drastic
response portrayed by the riotous demonstrators who appeared to have been
emboldened by solidarity messages and postures from far and near, some of whom
were even more undemocratic and autocratic. Most of the countries in the Arab
league/middle east not an exception.
The
principal reason behind international solidarity for the protesters against the
Assad’s regime was the urge to allow the people of Syria to freely exercise
their democratic right of free expression and association as protected by
international law and over two thirds of all municipal constitutions and
legislations. For many of international power players who
normally form the international community, however, this principal reason was
just meretricious. It was simply a camouflage and an escape route to galvanize
efforts to get their national and parochial interests protected and or
advanced.
Apparently
but ironically, Syria soon became a playground for interest maneuvering at the
huge expense of Syrian lives that were pretentiously being defended. Arms were
surprisingly delivered to a group of people that called themselves Free Syrian
Army (FSA) and such other opposition elements but whose leadership and range of
association was unpredictable, opaque and suspicious. In the process, Syrian
Army and other security forces were overwhelmed by FSA and other splinter, dispersed
opposition groups who seized towns, villages and cities while severely
terrorizing thousands of civilians with weapons they had seized and those they
got from their so-called friends who may not have had their interest deep at
heart.
Assad and
his Army were now made to look for cover under desperation and thus moved tanks
and heavy weaponry to city centers, shelled town, cities and villages and murdered
thousands of civilians. That was all too wrong. Both government and opposition
elements committed serious atrocities against humanity in the process of
pandering to their selfish desires and that of their international masters.
Central
authority became a miniature controlling only few areas of the country while
leaving strategic cities and towns especially close to the borders of its neighbors
in the hands of array of amateur and professional fighters who grouped
themselves into different independent sectarian associations fighting for all
kinds of purposes including religious, political/power and economic. The
coincidence of failure to effectively handle the Syrian lawlessness and Iraqi’s
instability created a free zone between Iraq and Syria which resulted in the
lawless groups fighting for religious, economic and political reasons to
converge their common interest in forming the Islamic State group (ISIS).
The way some
elements of the international community were able to dramatically identify some
of the groups as ‘legitimate and moderate’ while labeling others as hardliners
and terrorists would definitely amaze any bystander that struggles to gain a
refugee status in any of the countries sharing borders with Syria or even those
beyond. Whatever method and processes they used to identify these groups as ‘moderate
and legitimate’ are, to my mind, a suspect. It is not cast and stone. It is not
about the labels but more to do with what atrocities all of these groups
commit, although the disastrous operations of ISIS is all too outstanding.
Delivering weapons and fighting aids to such people who hardly have a clear
line of authority was and still is a miscalculation amongst those who may have
really meant well for the stability and peace of Syria, other than their own
parochial ends.
The fact is
that some of these opposition elements sometimes fight themselves instead of
uniting to oust Assad. But apart from the pro-government or pro-Assad fighters
who also emerged to support sustainability of the regime, there is hardly a
borderline between these opposition elements. For instance, Free Syrian Army member today
could easily become an ISIS member tomorrow or even later today. Al-Nusra front
member today could easily become an FSA member anytime. Weapons and loyalties
may well be freely crossing over from one opposition group to the other.
The
crisscrossing of weapons and membership or loyalty amongst these opposition
elements send clear signal to how wrong international community has been
handling the crisis in Syria. The staunch stance taken by some western leaders
and their allies led by USA government asking Assad to completely step aside
and allow the disorganized opposition elements to take over the governing
affairs of Syria may have added salt to injury.
Here was a
man in Assad who knew the disaster that would befall him if he dared resigned
and placed his personal fortunes in a lawless situation that had been created.
To his mind, I suspect, Assad would have preferred fighting to death instead of
resigning as would have easily been done in a free democratic society in the
developed world where rule of law is allowed to prevail. The threat to intervene or use force against
Assad if he did not step aside, under the circumstance especially when he knew
he still had some lingering support from world powers like Russia and perhaps
China, was therefore ill-conceived.
In fact,
everyone knew and still knows the outstanding havoc that has been brought onto
Libyans after North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other international
powers, in cahoots with reckless domestic elements, helped to murder Muammar Gaddafi
and destroying the whole central governance apparatus of the Libyan State which
is now a failed State, never thought of even under the autocratic and maybe
brutal regime of Gaddafi.
Therefore,
because of this wrong approach and disposition in the midst of increasing
complications, an attempt by United States of America (USA), Arab league, Russia
and other international interest groups to sponsor peace in Syria failed
without waiting. Not even United Nations (UN) special visitations, resolutions
and envoys could help return peace to Syria, conscious of the huge pretense
that shrouded the sponsors of these resolutions, envoys and peace talks.
The great Mr.
Kofi Annan’s failure, resignation and damning departing statement as joint UN
and Arab League special envoy in this regard could sum it better. Annan particularly
goes as frustratingly saying; "[as] an envoy, I can't want peace more than
the protagonists, more than the Security Council or the international
community, for that matter”. Thus, none of the parties was interested in his
six-point peace plan other than fostering their parochial interests. His
successor, renowned Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, followed suit because the status quo
which hampered efforts of Kofi Annan was persistent and perhaps even became
more established.
When
appeared to get out of control as some of the opposition elements under ISIS
was said to pose a threat to USA national and global interests, USA government
and her allies then launched air attacks on ISIS in September 2014 and over a
year on, ISIS was still kidnapping and beheading innocent people, expanding
membership and territories, and posing a threat to global peace and security. At the same time, Assad’s regime appeared to
be crumbling at one point and stabilizing at another point. Assad was probably
just happy maintaining the small relevant territory he had under his control
other than losing it all.
While
Russia was seriously battling with Ukraine/Crimea situation and western
sanctions that came along, she may have been quite curiously and attentively
watching events unfold in Syria. The daring reality was that the weapons Russia
was supplying to Assad hardly changed the game because they were carefully and
reluctantly supplied and or that there was inadequate manpower and
infrastructure in Assad’s Syria to utilize the weapons supplied or intended to
be supplied. Assad’s regime was apparently bleeding to the end while USA and her
allies were apparently protecting and advancing their interest therein, of
course, to the clear detriment of the existence of centrally established and
recognized system. Admittedly and
admirably, the USA intervention helped to rescue the Yazidis in Iraq and of
course slowed down ISIS expansion into Iraq with thousands of militants killed,
according to USA - but not towards Assad.
With idling
weapons and military airpower searching for grounds to demonstrate, test and
activate, President Vladimir Putin of Russia at a point felt that he could not
continue to sit by with all of his power while allowing his ally, Assad, to be
surreptitiously and openly ousted by international actors under the cover of
international diplomacy and fighting against ISIS. Mr. Putin then mobilized his
forces and entered the fray with vigor in September 2015, regardless of the
consequences. As usual, Putin also pretended like USA and its allies that his
airstrikes were only to disable ISIS and other terrorist groups.
However,
even though Putin stepped in to help Assad to regain stability and recapture
lost territories, his forces after few months of operations have been said to
significantly incur a serious blow on ISIS in Syria as they run more for safe
haven than before. At the same time, Assad’s forces have been able to recapture
strategic towns including Aleppo due to Russia’s airstrikes against some of the
forces regarded by USA as legitimate and moderate opposition groups – which
apparently are not recognized as such by Russia. Russia’s presence in Syria is
a game changer and has indeed changed the game of recapturing territories, of
course for Assad.
Realizing
the increasing gains and stability of Assad’s regime and the collision course
USA was likely heading with Russia, which would be severely disastrous, the
peace processes that had been somewhat dormant after the exit of Annan and
Brahimi were enigmatically but naturally ignited resulting in the ongoing peace
talks at Munich in Germany.
Quite
clearly, US State Secretary, John Kerry and his counterparts have been able to
pull strings and sober moves to galvanize mutual understanding which have led
to the agreement by participating groups including Russia and warring factions
in Syria to the cessation of hostilities in a week from 12th
February 2016. This move is certainly good news to anyone that has care and
sympathy for thousands (at least 250, 0000) human lives that have been wasted and
millions of suffering refugees, internally displaced or locked up civilians in
Syria. However, to all intent and purposes, every independent observer would
appreciate that the fact that even cease fire could not be used in the Munich agreement
means a lot about how long Syria may be to stability. It is also good news that BBC reported on
Sunday 14th February 2016 that Mr. Putin and President Barack Obama
of USA have had a useful and encouraging telephone conversation in order to
work together for peace in Syria.
The fact is
that despite diplomatic chess played between USA and Russia in the midst of
these complex dynamics, Russia would not want to see anything that would make
it impossible for her to complete its business of eliminating all threats to
the existence of Assad’s regime. Russia also says she is defending her national
interest because some of the fighters are Russians and would return to Russia
to inflict terror on her citizens. On
the other hand, USA and her allies would want Assad to step down even though
they may now feel it is a distant reality. However, it would be difficult to
ask USA and her allies to stop supporting the course of the so-called ‘moderate
and legitimate’ opposition elements such as FSA.
Meanwhile
both Assad’s regime and all opposition elements have committed horrendous acts,
which would have been unpardonable. USA and her allies as well as Russia have
equally caused the lost of many civilian lives during their air campaigns. The
situation presents a nauseating competition between ideal situation,
illegalities and disorderliness. There
has to be a middle line under the interwoven circumstances.
That is the
more reason why common sense approach along international legal perimeters must
be made to prevail, henceforth. I am not
sure of what really has been put forward by parties at the peace talks in
Munich. I would however want to posit that one clear pathway to common understanding
is the resolve to ensure that Russia and USA together with her allies get the
following done concurrently, without fail:
Russia
should immediately cease her airstrikes and prevail over Assad and his
government to also end the hostilities as agreed in Munich. Any of
pro-government forces that refuse to comply or to be prevailed upon by Assad or
Russia should be regarded as enemies, targeted collectively and eliminated. At
the same time, Russia and Assad should be made to recognize the ‘legitimate and
moderate’ opposition groups as viable partners to a peaceful and stable Syria
while leaving no stone unturned to eliminate the visibly violent opposition
groups as mutually identified by all legitimate partners in the game.
In the same vein, USA and her allies should immediately
stop its airstrikes and operations to weaken Assad’s regime while prevailing
over the ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition groups to end all hostilities
against Assad regime and its allies as well as making these groups recognize
Assad as the only democratically elected and legitimate President of Syria. Any
of such groups that cannot be prevailed upon by USA through peaceful means has
to be destroyed by collective forces of both USA and Russia.
If these
feats are achieved, the opposition groups should be disbanded, the leaders of
which made to play key roles in a new government that would be led by Assad
until his 7 year tenure ends. The opposition elements may have the fear of being
witch hunted, arbitrarily imprisoned or ostracized. These fears are legitimate
and must be made to be part of the assurances Assad will give in a peace pact.
Assad may
also harbor the fear that these ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition elements
may make his government ungovernable as they may not agree on governance
processes. Although it is all about consensus building, these concerns should
also be upon which assurances the opposition elements must give in the peace
pact. Assad may also harbor the fundamental fear that if he steps aside after
his legitimate tenure ends, he may be witch hunted by any opposition element
that may succeed him. Guarantees should be given on this too so that Assad
would feel safer and willing to exit the governance scene after his legitimate
tenure expires.
These are
democratic sacrifices that ought to be made regardless of the inconveniences
and moral issues that could be raised. Crucifying some democratic tenets or
principles for a greater good is far better than maintaining or protecting such
principles for a worse consequence when there may be none or only few left to
bear any testimony, I dare say.
All the
warring factions must be made to understand quite clearly that anyone who
breaches the tenets of the peace pact that would be signed shall be vehemently
attacked by the combined forces of Russia, USA and her allies as well as
concerned global forces. United Nations should see to the fullest
implementation of the peace pact and processes. Look, Assad and other warring factions
excluding those outside the ‘somewhat in control’ of USA and her allies will
respond swiftly if they see that USA and Russia are really committed to
implementing decisions reached by all of them. However, if these warring factions feel that Russia
and USA and other Western powers are using Syria as a staging post for another
cold war or a possible world war, they definitely would not take them very
seriously.
A clear
message to Russia and the Western countries and their allies led by USA is
that, it is neither in their interest nor in the interest of Syrians and the rest
of the world to create any possibility that rehearses its way towards a cold
war or a third world war. Immediately
however, the humanitarian and refugee crises caused by the Syrian conflict are
terrible eyesores urgently seeking for urgent remedies. While working assiduously to end the conflict
through genuine overtures, the world leaders should please work around the
clock to protect the fundamental human rights of millions of refugees presented rightly by
NATO’s Secretary General on BBC radio of
13th February 2016 as the ‘biggest
crises of refugees in Europe since the second world war’.
Ultimately,
the concern should not be about who is right or otherwise. What is most
important under the prevailing circumstances must have everything to do with right
things to do, going forward. Mutual and collective sacrifices, commitments,
genuineness and open-mindedness must form the fortress on which the forward
march efforts will be harnessed.
Otherwise, the Munich Peace talks may eventually end up to be a talk-shop
that wasted every body’s precious time.
