Syria on balance of civil war and reforms

The reported crackdown and use of fire weapon and tanks in Deraa demonstrated determination by Syrian government to forcefully suppress the protests. However in other cities, where the demonstrations continued across the country, the measures undertaken were softer and ostensibly avoiding eventual bloodshed. Some observers considered it as just a temporary concession on the eve of UN Security Council discussion of Syria.

Finally on April 28 UN Security Council declined the statement proposed by four EU countries to condemn Syrian government for crackdown. Evidently the hesitation indicated to existing concerns about regional security and significant role the Syrian government has played in regional policy. Syria used to be crucial force in stabilizing fragile political scene in Lebanon. Iran and Syria maintain good relations and have been committed to cooperate in regional security challenges. Syria has been the most stubborn policy champion against Israel occupation of Arab Palestine and other Arab lands, which has brought much credibility for Bashar Assad among nationalist forces in Arab states.

However internally in the country Syrian president has been definitely losing his previous credit of modernizer and reformist that he enjoyed when came to replace his farther the former President Hafez Assad. Assad family belongs to Alevi sect of Shiite Moslems which constitute % 12-14 of the country population against %55-60 of Sunni Arabs and remaining minor percentages of variety of other ethno-confessional groups.

Alevi Arabs used to fill commanding positions in Syrian government, but a troublesome issue for the government was occurring Alevi engagement in protest actions in the city of Jabla. This is alarming indication of growing isolation of president Bashar and his heavy dependence on security forces and suppressive mechanisms in power. Does that leave no choice for him other than crackdown in addressing the protest sentiments in society? And what might be further actions of international community and organizations if the crackdown was escalated?

The overall controversy of the situation is that Syria, unlike Egypt and Jordan has not signed peace agreement with Israel and Israeli politicians have never concealed their will to see a “more friendly Syria” http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9470000/9470932.stm. 

Does that play for, or against Syrian regime? We have seen that UN back up for military measures against Kaddafi followed a kind of blessing from Arab countries and League of Arab States. What can be expected from the spectrum of such actors regarding Syria?

Failure of UN condemnation provided some breath, but increasing violence and abuses might change the balance towards more rigid approach. It is crucial time for young President Assad to take up the leadership and put a start for a new pattern of developments in present stage of Arab resurrection movement.

NATO air strike of Kaddafi compound: Libyan leader and Saddam Hussein put on the same scale.

World news reported today that powerful missiles badly damaged Colonel Kaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziyya compound in Tripoli early on Monday. BBC report says that the damaged buildings were the same where Kaddafi recently hosted a visit by African Union peace mission. It was perceived as a personal attack against Kaddafi, and there hardly were any evidences of military purposes on the targeted site, the BBC reporter Ian Pannel told. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13184594

This last development certainly indicated to a new remarkable milestone in Libya unrest. NATO warplanes purposed neither Libyan airplanes, nor on-ground weaponry attacking civilians armed against the regime. However after a whole month of operations within UN resolution provided limits it has become obvious that they are not sufficient to achieve a declared goal on Kaddafi to leave. And any next moves by international coalition forces are conspicuously bordering the legitimacy of operations. 

Targeting Libyan still in power leader signified acceptance of his killing as justified action to “protect civilians.” Is this a non-return point from where similar contest with Iraqi dictator lead to the occupation of the country and following killing of Saddam Hussein? The allies have faced a pressure to undertake further action as far as the airstrikes did not move the situation from a stalemate. While “boots on ground” is a debated option http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/04/boots-on-ground-might-that-lead-for.html a more cautions and latest idea is to send in military advisers for rebels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13148443

However deploying military advisers means deeper involvement and presence on the ground. The ghost of Iraq occupation that has not brought peace and security for Iraqi people was an imminent threat over the anti-Kaddafi forces in the whole run of the Libya crisis. The implications can be even more precarious in Arab public opinion so far as simple comparisons can demonstrate.

Muammar Kaddafi’s patriotic rhetoric was not shadowed by attacking any other Arab state and nation to justify forceful dismiss, let alone his killing.  Benefits of Libyan social programs gained considerably sympathy to Libyan government and might remain as reminiscences of better life that could hardly be secured in hardships of transitional period.  Having been authoritarian ruler himself, Kaddafi used to criticize Arab monarchies for their disloyalty to common Arab interests and often acted as a donor for common Arab initiatives and projects.  In other words Muammar Kaddafi might have challenged the Western policy in Middle East and interests of Arab monarchies but has not committed anything obviously breaching the imaginable Arab unity.

In the evidence of enhancing face-off in Syria, uncertainty in Yemen, ambiguity of Bahrain turmoil, any inaccuracies in dealing with Libyan matter and Kaddafi can enhance grievances and widen a gap with Arab public opinion, which used to create a ground for the growth of radical sentiments and confrontation that should belong to the past but not to forge the future of the region.

Time for Arab motion!

Arab media (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121115231647934.html) as well as repeated postings in this blog (http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/02/resurrection-of-new-arab-unity-can.html) indicated to conspicuously reviving sense of Arab world commonality in the course of revolutionary movement in Arab countries.

This reviving spirit of unity, however, featured a different value than used to do before - that of  shared demand for reforming the Arab society, but not only external relations with other nations and Arab-Israel conflict in particular.

The Libya stalemate emphasized and enhanced such common Arab responsibility of developments in a particular Arab country. On ground operation has come to minds of Libya turmoil actors as the capacity of internal opposition to remove Colonel Kaddafi from power is deemed insufficient. The western countries that have taken lead in the imposed “non-fly” zone policy are, however, limited to move beyond air space policing and airstrikes, because of legal restrictions provided in UN resolution on Libya and Iraq syndrome.

It is a momentum for Arab political institutions to demonstrate the reality of Arab unity by political decisions and moves. Doha Debates – series of policy discussions - broadcasted by BBC enabled to conclude that although a demand for Arabs rather than NATO to move in Libya is shared by many, a serious concern is that Arab countries and governments that are expected to seek a way out of stalemate are not themselves champions of democracy reforms and hopes for their closer engagement in developments might remain unfold.  What might be next move then, if not a say by Arabs themselves?

Boots on the ground: might that lead for Russia to regain the Middle East?

NATO airstrikes have turned Libyan government forces back from Benghazi at the outset of attacks, but they failed to end up with final solution. The advancement of loyalists followed and now many observers warn against a stalemate unless on ground operations support anti-Kaddafi forces. The western actors have breached visible neutrality by judging Kaddafi just go. 

Meanwhile the increasing rigor and pressure on Libyan leader to resign, the limitation of UN resolution on Libya to back up anything beyond the non-fly zone and airstrikes is getting ever more evident. Hesitations in home countries about deeper immense into the conflict on opposition side are raised and British parliament, for example,  is preparing to discuss after the Easter vacation if the government was deliberately stretching the limits of UN resolution and escalating the UK role in Libyan conflict. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13112559

 

The first phase of Western engagement in Libya is over, the Kaddafi forces “have weathered the storm and his regime has not collapsed.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13142441 . However opening a new phase to bolster anti-Kaddafi forces on ground is the unknown zone of implications. Rightfully indeed there is a concern of Arab public opinion and ghost of Iraq intervention outcomes that did not bring peace and security to people whom it was declared to serve. 

Indeed what is mostly silenced in Western media but has been evident in Arab news is that Arab revolution has not only been a rise of democracy aspirations but also a wider sense of human dignity and resurrection of new pan-Arab sentiments. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121115231647934.html

 

An outcry for Justice was also rooted in continuing stalemate of Middle East conflict and refugee rights in the region. More consistent dedication to democracy and human rights is required not only from Arabs but also from advanced democracies in Europe and the US. It seems to be quite consistent evolution of once started movement towards humane political order and justice. This time there is a chance to merge the lines of people striving to global peace and justice. All actors are questioned on that testing inside their countries and in their neighbourhoods and relations with others. Alternatively a counter process of reviving polarisation is imminent.

It was not of a sudden that Russian political analysts started revisiting the Middle East policy of the bygone super power. Failure of the West to establish a dialogue with Islam and growing common Arab political space is seen as a chance for Russia to regain the Middle East after three decades of the break. http://www.riss.ru/doklady_i_vystuplenija/doklady_i_vystuplenija?newsId=336/  Misbalances and inconsistency of Western policy in the Middle East work as arguments to assert a new dawn of western imperialism. http://www.riss.ru/aktualnye_kommentarii/?commentsId=145

 

What can the people in struggle for democracy, dignity and human rights expect of such well known landscape of clashing interests? Are we coming to the start of vicious circle, or in fact are stepping to new phase of international order and relationship between western democracies and struggling democracies in the East?  New perspective is seen on horizon of long history of East and West relationship and contest. This phase is about transformation of all principal actors. And that is an essence of new phase, but not just new faces in Arab policy.