To bring down Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, it took seventeen days and it cost the Egyptian people 846 lives. The Syrian uprising began on March 15 2011 with peaceful protests in the city of Deraa,’ though Bashar Al-Assad was able to successfully turn those nonviolent protests (characteristic of the other Arab uprisings) into what observers have begun to call a civil war. At this time, 562 days have passed with an more than 26,000 Syrians dead. An estimated 5,400 were killed in August 2012 alone.
There has been some talk about the possibility of a Libya-style intervention in order to support the Syrian rebels. However, there are significant differences between the situation in Libya then and the situation in Syria now. First of all, Libya has a significant amount of oil which was vital to Italy’s economic stability, and since the overthrow of Qaddafi, western oil companies have already moved in or returned in order to pick up the pieces. Syria has no oil, and there are no European or western economies that depend on a stable Syria. Additionally, the Libyan intervention had the support of the United Nations Security Council. All attempts at even condemning the deteriorating situation in Syria have been met with Russian and Chinese vetoes, whereas for the vote on the intervention in Libya they only abstained.
Even after the grisly month of August, there does not appear to be any change in position from these countries to support action in Syria, whether that means further sanctions or military interventions. What do these countries have to gain by financially, militarily, and diplomatically supporting Assad’s brutality?
Russia has several interests in Syria, most of which having to do with arms sales that amount to about $700 million per year to Assad’s regime. These arms deals have included most recently surface to air missiles (a not so subtle nod to Libya’s no-fly zone), armored rocket complexes and possibly even fighter jets. Arms deals are lasting connections; they do not end with an immediate transaction. An arms deal often requires years of training, maintenance and additional sales of ammunition. There are also several connections forged between the two countries that date back to the Cold War Era. First and foremost Syria has the last remaining Russian military base outside of its borders: the naval base in Tartus. However to a certain extent there is a deeper connection. During the Cold War era Syrian elites would often end up going to Russia for higher education and many as it turns out brought back a husband or a wife. As a result, there are approximately 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria.
Russian diplomats have argued that if it is appropriate for Gulf countries and western powers to provide arms and support to the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, then why is Russia being criticized for supporting the regime? As empty as the argument may be, it is one that the US quietly understands. The US supported the Saudi Arabian intervention in Bahrain to crush the uprising there. Why would the US support the brutality in Bahrain? Well, it would likely come down to arms deals and the US naval base there (in addition to keeping oil markets stable, of course).
China claims that its interests in Syria do not go further than its relationship with Russia. Others have claimed that China’s foreign policy is based on a traditional view of international relations that demagogues the notion of sovereignty, apparently to the point of turning a blind eye to a bloodbath. However, China has not been neutral. They’ve vetoed the three Security Council attempts to punish the Assad regime, and have at the very least facilitated the transfer of arms from North Korea that was on route to Latakia before it was seized.
Iran, the regional rival of the governments aligned against Syria, has been actively supporting Assad’s regime with logistical and economic support as well as the presence of the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force. Iran’s interests in standing by the Assad regime are two-fold: 1) Syria remains Iran’s access to the Mediterranean and the Levant and is a crucial component of facilitating material and military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon; and 2) Syria is a government dominated by Shia that is currently facing down a rebellion that is being supported by the Sunni-dominated Gulf states. While Bahrain’s Sunni minority crushes the resistance of the Shia majority (with US support), Iran is supporting the Syrian regime—dominated by the Shia minority—in their repression of Syria’s Sunni majority. There is no question that Iran would be regionally weaker without its long term Syrian ally. Iran is especially weary of this loss in the face of the recent turmoil surrounding its nuclear program and the western threats of military attack that have gone along with it.
One predominant problem facing a real policy shift for these countries is that the chips are already down so to speak. Even if Russia and Iran were to cut off aid to the Assad regime today and a new government was to emerge, this government would naturally carry quite a bit of resentment for the countries that armed and protected Assad’s terrorist government. The policy of support for dictators is inevitably counterintuitive particularly when it comes to forging long lasting geopolitical partnerships.
These are the diplomatic impasses that are stymieing further action in Syria. As the new UN envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi has said, this going to take an international effort in order to achieve the quick end to the bloodshed. This does not just mean America and its regional allies. If the western powers (including the US) are serious about really ending support for the Assad regime, they will need to engage with all parties. This includes China and Russia, but this also includes engaging Iran which, unfortunately the west has been reluctant to do at any time, on any issue.
Moreover it is necessary to complicate the western military support for the Syrian opposition. As much as I might favor nonviolence I do not favor at all suicide by dictator, which leaves in a default position of supporting the armed rebels. However, we should be mindful that the opposition and the rebels are not homogenous. There are fighters being backed by the specific parties of the Syrian National Council, others backed by specific Gulf countries, and while each is interested in the fall of the Assad regime, not all are committed to a military resolution and not all are committed to a free and democratic Syria. What is more is that choosing specific groups with interests that do not coincide with the interests of the Syrian people is wholly immoral. Rather than a chance to advance any particular party’s geopolitical interests all polities should be concerned with safety of the Syrian population. Syria is not a piece on a chessboard; it is a country with real issues with real people in real danger. All parties—America, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.—ought to respect that.
No comments:
Post a Comment