Time is running out for Assad

[1]

Syria is burning. Mayhem continues unabated. Major players are shadow boxing and pursuing their respective agendas. Innocent civilians are getting killed everyday; nearly 20,000 might have perished since March 2011. They have become mere pawns on the Chessboard for control of Syria.

Blame game is on: who killed around 100 civilians brutally in El-Houleh. Bashar Assad? Rebels? People themselves? The US and Nato feel outraged, issue strongly-worded condemnation, demand Mr Assad to step down but find themselves rather helpless; can’t repeat pax Libya!
Mr Assad hangs on.
Apparently, the humiliating hanging of Saddam Hussain and the brutal killing of Col. Gaddafi by his own people hasn’t deterred him. Few months ago, in my piece about Col. Gaddafi’s tragic end, I had said Bashar is next. I still think so. If he has survived longer than what many had expected, it isn’t on account of his popularity/mass following or exemplary leadership. He is still alive thanks to Russia and China who vetoed UN Resolution against Syria. They have ensured that the US and Nato don’t have a UN Resolution which they could use as a fig leaf to bomb Syria and bring down the Assad regime in the name of protecting the civilians. How long will he last? Only time will tell.
An objective analysis of developments suggests that Mr Assad can delay his ouster but can’t escape it. He might fall sooner than later. And when it happens, most likely bloody and brutal, it might prove an unprecedented watershed having a cascading effect on the entire West Asia.
The Syrian drama has a number of personae dramatis. For the US, the EU and Israel, the real target is Iran; by hitting Syria they hope to weaken Iran. There is a broader conflict in play between the Sunnis and the Shias; Sunnis represented by Saudi Arabia & Shias by Iran, the two countries seldom see eye-to-eye. Syria under Mr Assad has been a sore thumb for Saudi rulers, so his fall will be welcome especially as it might affect Iran negatively. Saudi plans for Bahrain’s merger are strongly opposed by Iran. Saudis want to have some say in Syrian revolution and be seen as protector of Sunnis.
Turkey, whose rule extended far and wide during the Ottoman Empire and which prides in being secular is unhappy with Mr Assad for his support to the PKK, which is banned in Turkey. Both Russia and China, which supported the UN Resolution on Libya were disappointed by it’s actual implementation; Nato flagrantly violated the mandate of the Resolution; from being a mandate for protecting the civilians it degenerated in to a mandate for regime change! They have learnt their bitter lesson; they won’t let it happen in Syria. Besides, Russia has its long defence and strategic interests in Syria to protect. China sees Syria “as a trading hub” and fear its fall might expose Iran to Western/Israeli attack, thus disrupting energy supplies.
In Libya, several ministers, ambassadors, senior govt officers and at a later stage even the Army units took the plunge and joined the Transitional Council.
In Syria, there is no well-coalesced Opposition group under one leader. One hears of Syrian Free Army but there is virtual political vacuum. This makes it more difficult for the West to mobilise them and supply weapons (Russia and Iran are suspected to have supplied weapons to Mr Assad as some Gulf states to the rebels). No Army commander has deserted the beleaguered Syrian leader so far. The day some senior Generals conclude enough is enough and ditch Mr Assad and Opposition groups succeed in occupying some territory of Syria, clock will start ticking for Mr Assad.
In case of Libya, its oil was an attractive booty. In case of Syria, its geographical location, border with Israel, it’s regional influence particularly in Lebanon, presence of a large number of Palestinians, access to Mediterranean Sea and it’s military muscle. No wonder Hafez al-Assad used to boast: “Road to West Asia peace process passes through Damascus”.
In 1995/96, US secretary of state Warren Christopher reportedly visited Damascus 27 times to hammer out an agreement between Israel and Syria .Clearly, the US was keen to have Syria on board. But times have changed. If Mr Assad refuses to play ball, it is time for him to go.
Syrian crises raises several issues: legal, moral, political & humanitarian. But the bottomline is the national interests of the leading actors.
Is it legal in international law to orchestrate regime change if the ruler turns against his people? If the idea of regime change is abhorrent, isn’t it more abhorrent to remain silent when a despotic ruler maims and massacres his own civilian population? Should the rulers be allowed to undertake ethnic cleansing and commit genocide with impunity? If the UN and the world community did react swiftly and decisively, won’t over 3.5 million civilians who were massacred in Rwanda could have been saved? Won’t thousands of civilians have been saved in Syria had Russia and China not vetoed the UN Resolution? The latest Resolution of the UNHRC condemns the Assad regime for “outrageous use of force” against innocent civilians at village El-Houleh and demands immediate cessation of violence.
Russia, China and Cuba have voted against the Resolution; Russian President Putin still maintains that a political solutions is possible and blames the rebels for the violence. The EU has voted repeatedly for sanctions of their own and favour military action against Syria but can’t persuade all members to expel Syrian envoys.
India has, understandably, voted for the Resolution along with the US and EU. But has India been in contact with rebel leaders who might be catapulted to a leadership role if the Assad regime falls? Who are they? What are their credentials? Many feel the Muslim Brotherhood might be the biggest beneficiary; ironically neither Bashar nor his father could completely eliminate them though they tried their best.
Sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of all nations must be sacrosanct. But so are the basic human rights. If a ruler, who was never elected democratically by the popular mandate but who had usurped power by force unleashes violence against his own civilian population to perpetuate his hold on the reins of power, regime change should be attempted as the last resort but with the widest possible International support.
The writer was a former secretary in the ministry of external affairs