Days before
the US presidential election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
travelled to Doha to help forge a united Syrian opposition. Nineteen
months after the Syrian uprisings began, Gulf and western states, along
with Russia, Iran, and China have undermined any possible peace process,
while at the same time feeding and containing a civil war that has
claimed 30,000 lives. Syria has become a humanitarian disaster that
Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Peace Envoy to Syria, believes might become the
next Somalia.
While Brahimi’s failed-state metaphor
is far-fetched at this stage, he fears that the combination of competing
militias comprising defected soldiers, armed protesters, and foreign
and Islamist fighters, could devolve into total chaos. The Syrian crisis
has transformed into a political and military battle between the
government and opposition movements that include elite and exiled
activists, local coordinating committees, and rebel fighters.
Opposition parties, particularly the Syrian National Council, have
been frustrated by their own infighting and failure to centralise the
decision-making of rebel fighters, thus resulting in battles against the
Syrian military that have drawn proved destructive and indiscriminate
responses against innocent civilians.
Since Syria is the
last of the Arab spring states to come to a decisive solution, are
outside powers losing patience? One could argue that the Syrian
revolution was effectively co-opted by western and Gulf states in a
proxy war against Iran. Part of that strategy, then, would involve
fracturing the Syrian state, and in turn society, through a contained
civil war. It is no secret that outside powers, on either side, could
decisively end the conflict in Syria by flooding it with technology,
ammunition, and advanced weaponry or implementation of a no-fly-zone.
Thus, Syria has become a geopolitical battlefront – Gulf states,
Turkey, Europe, and the United States on one side, and Syria, Iran,
China, Russia and Hezbollah on the other – that created a humanitarian
crisis with no obvious solution.
The tension for the
various parties is between decisively ending the crisis versus managing a
solution that would preserve or enhance geopolitical interests. For
example, western and Gulf states have had no problems denouncing Assad,
providing havens for elite activists to meet, or supporting opposition
fighters with some weapons and supplies. Yet, for all of their backing,
both rhetorical and material, there has been a consistent reticence to
fully realise the promise of support. Why is this so?
First, western states are exhausted militarily. Between the Afghan and
Iraq wars, the evident consequences of arming rebels in Libya, and
Egypt’s political volatility, Gulf and western states are engaging in
damage control to preserve their assets and interests.
Second, one could argue that the war in Syria became a stalemate because
it was in the strategic interests of western and Gulf states, not
because they believed that more explicit intervention would lead to
spillover, sectarian conflict, or civil war. If anything, the devolution
of civil war, along sectarian and religious lines and 30,000 dead
suggests the convenience of the excuse rather than deterrence.
Now that President Obama has been re-elected, how will western and
Gulf powers (and Turkey) move forward? Are they likely to intensify
their efforts to organise a politico-military solution, much like they
did in Libya? Perhaps. This is possible for three reasons. First, the
conflict in Syria is clearly straining Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey
because of refugees, violence, and rebel fighters, foreign and Syrian,
exploiting porous borders. If the instability spreads, Gulf and western
states may lose their ability to “contain the fire”.
Second, President Barack Obama is now free to support, or perhaps even
lead, an organised effort to bring down President Assad once and for
all. President Obama’s carefully managed and contested campaign
prevented him from taking any real substantive stance on Syria in the
last two years.
Third, the Syrian regime, with the
steadfast backing of Russia, Iran, and China, has clearly indicated that
it does not take negotiations seriously, leaving little incentives for
leaders and activists to trust the Syrian regime.
Western politicians are beginning to prudently and carefully craft some
form of Syrian intervention? After visiting the Zaatari refugee camp in
Jordan, where Syrian refugees are increasingly clamouring to return home
due to the atrocious conditions of camp life, Prime Minister David
Cameron asserted that President Bashar al-Assad should be granted safe
passage out of Syria in order to allay his fears of prosecution.
He additionally noted, for the first time, that Great Britain, will
engage in direct contact with rebel soldiers in order to organise them
into a more effective force. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton slammed the Syrian National Council, noting, “The SNC can no
longer be viewed as the visible leader of the opposition.” She, along
with US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, organised a meeting in Doha to
orchestrate a unified front between the Syrian opposition groups, which
could later lead the transition.
Additionally, Turkey’s
tit-for-tat shelling with Syria culminated in a request to Nato to
transfer patriot missiles to the Syrian border. At this point, it would
not be surprising to see the next escalation of violence lead to a
coalition of countries preparing for joint military operations, led by
Turkey.
Yet Nato officials have repeatedly insisted that
no action will be taken without a resolution from the United Nations
Security Council where pro- and anti-Assad camps refuse to compromise.
How, then, might intervention proceed?
Frankly, it is
hard to say. While Ambassador Robert Ford insists that the only solution
is political, it is hard to imagine a solution that does not explicitly
target the Syrian military’s firepower. Nevertheless, the military
option is unlikely unless the opposition organises, and this is unlikely
to happen soon. Indeed, the Doha Conference barely started before
different parties, including Riad Seif, a long-time activist with
international and street credibility, withdrew from the negotiations,
while the SNC rejected the convention platform, and others spurned the
meeting altogether.
Syria is fractured and innocent
civilians die but why should we be surprised? Geopolitics is, in the
end, a game of elite interests that produces its own crises at the
expense of the people.
The writer is a Syrian-American geographer and activist.