Normative Narratives


4 Comments

Conflict Watch: The Political “Solution” in Syria, and the Syrian End-Game

A comment made practically in jest by Secretary of State John Kerry, has become the centerpiece of the international communities “solution” to holding Assad accountable for chemical weapons attacks:

“He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting, but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done,” Mr. Kerry said.

Mr. Kerry’s remarks, especially the reference to the short window of time, underscored the urgency of the administration’s preparations for a strike, and it did not appear to signal a shift in policy. The State Department’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, later clarified in an e-mail to reporters that Mr. Kerry was simply “making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied using.”

“His (Kerry’s) point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That’s why the world faces this moment.”

Officials in Syria embraced the idea, as did Britain, France, the United Nations and even some Republican lawmakers in Washington.

President Obama called a proposal by Russia on Monday to avert a United States military strike on Syria over chemical weapons use “a potentially positive development” but said he would continue to press for military action to keep the pressure up. But he said that “if we don’t maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I would like to see.”

In another interview with NBC News, Mr. Obama said he would take the Russian proposal “with a grain of salt initially.” But he told the network that if Syrian officials accept the Russian proposal, “then this could potentially be a significant breakthrough.”

Reacting to another comment by Mr. Kerry — that any attack on Syria would be “unbelievably small” — Mr. Obama said any attack would not be felt like a “pinprick” in Syria.

“The U.S. does not do pinpricks,” he said in the NBC interview. “Our military is the greatest the world has ever known. And when we take even limited strikes, it has an impact on a country like Syria.”

I do not think dismantling Assad’s chemical stockpile is a bad idea, this should certainly be part of any long-term geopolitical strategy for a post-Assad Syria. But the idea that Assad will grant the international community full and unfettered access anywhere in Syria, or that such a mission would even be reasonably safe during a civil war, is ludicrous.  John Kerry said Assad lied to his face about using scud missiles to his face and is “a man without credibility”. Assad is not a man we can trust; even if he was, he may not even have the ability to give full access and cooperation to the international community. This so called “solution” is a non-plan as it is not credible and does not address the root causes of the problem in Syria.

For all of the tough rhetoric from Assad, it is very clear that Syria’s ability to strike back at the U.S. is virtually non-existent. Assad’s forces themselves are rightfully scared of the prospect of American military intervention, and the opportunities it will open up for the Syrian rebels (last week I advocated pairing U.S. military strikes with a redoubled effort to consolidate opposition power / rooting out extremist factions by creating Syrian national rebel army. For the record, I still believe more intelligence must be made available to the public to prove Assad’s forces used the chemical weapons themselves). 

Although commanders spoke of unspecified plans to fight back against U.S. attacks, junior service members described the notion of actually taking on U.S. forces as absurd.

“Our small warships are spread around the coast on full alert, and why? To confront the U.S. destroyers? I feel like I’m living in a bad movie,” said a Syrian Navy sailor reached on a vessel in the Mediterranean.

“Of course I’m worried. I know we don’t really have anything to confront the Americans. All we have is God.”

Obama is correct to take the stance he is taking; if Assad wants to avoid military strikes he must commit to a political resolution in Syria. The U.S. is not intending a “pin-prick”, even limited strikes over the course of 60 (or 90 if he gets a congressional extension) combined with redoubled efforts by the Syrian opposition could help turn the tide of the war.

If the ultimate goal is a pluralistic and democratic Syria, it would be wrong at this point to back away from military intervention. Assad continues to receive support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The opposition has received empty promises from Western allies and fierce fighting from extremist-linked allies. If the U.S. has any hopes of separating out extremist and legitimate factions in the Syrian opposition and truly pressure Assad to come to the bargaining table, it must maintain a “political-transition-or-military-strike” approach to Syria, while continuing to enhance the capacity of a parallel Syrian military and government to assume the power void in post-Assad Syria. 

The Syrian opposition and the Gulf Arab States have already opposed the proposed Syrian chemical arms deal:

Gulf Arab states said on Tuesday a Russian proposal calling for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons to win a reprieve from U.S. military strikes would not stop bloodshed in Syria.

“We’ve heard of the initiative … It’s all about chemical weapons but doesn’t stop the spilling of the blood of the Syrian people,” Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa told a news conference in Jeddah.

If the international community wants any chance of having political capital in a post-Assad Syria, it must not renege on it’s commitments to the Syrian opposition now, when after years of inaction meaningful assistance appeared to imminent. Doing so would further sour already strained Western-opposition relations, and bolster the power of extremist groups who have willingly participated in the civil war (not out of the kindness of their hearts mind you, they will try to seize power for their role in the civil war unless a more powerful Syrian national rebel army exists to oppose them).

The Syrian civil war is at a cross-roads, or more like a stalemate that fosters misery, chaos, death, human rights violations and economic decline. It is time for all sides to stop posing behind their positions and try to find mutual ground. Both the international community and Assad wish to avoid U.S.-backed military intervention. The international community and the Syrian opposition want Assad to step down. To reconcile these positions, Assad could agree to hand over his chemical weapons stockpile and move forward with a road-map to democracy in Syria. However, If Assad is interested only in retaining power–which all signs indicate he is–the U.S. and its allies must ultimately show their hand as well and fully commit to overthrowing Assad with force.

There is no long term solution for Syria which involves Assad staying in power–only more years of lost economic growth and death. If the international community is truly interested in a pluralistic and democratic Syria, it must lay the groundwork right now. Failure to do so will mean that either Assad remains in power, or extremist factions fill the power-void after Assad’s ouster. We cannot turn our backs on the legitimate Syrian opposition, who only want the ability to live meaningful lives with dignity and freedom–things generally taken for granted in modernized democratic society. We cannot send the message that political Islam and democracy are irreconcilable, and that jihad is the only path to empowerment for young Muslims. This precedent has already been set in Egypt, it cannot be allowed to be driven home in Syria.

Secretary Kerry said that the public is right to debate the costs and benefits of limited strikes in Syria. But we must remember that we are not talking about “boots on the ground” or any other prolonged effort. We are talking about upholding international law, not some “red-line” Obama made up. “You’ve got to draw lines and there are consequences for crossing those lines.” “You’d say, ‘don’t do anything’. We believe that’s dangerous, and we will face this down the road in some more significant way if we are not prepared to take some sort of stand now.” The Syrian civil war cannot be left to fester unattended–the consequences currently are catastrophic for Syria and its neighbors and in the future could be for the world.


5 Comments

Transparency Thursday: The Syrian Humanitarian Crisis

A lot has been written on the Syrian Civil War, and rightfully so. Over the last 23 months, the Syrian Civil War has claimed the lives of an estimated 70,000+ people. The Assad government remains in control mainly due to UNSC vetoes by Russia and China. These two countries, natural champions of “national sovereignty”, have tied the international community’s collective hands in the matter with no ideological shift in sight. Multi-lateral intervention has failed the Syrian people.

Therefore, it falls on individual nations to act either unilaterally, or more likely bi-laterally, to expedite the process of removing Bashar Al-Assad from power. It has become public knowledge that late last year President Obama rejected a plan from high ranking administration officials to arm the Syrian rebels.

It is not surprising that Obama has been very meticulous with regards to the Syria conflict. America is currently in the process of winding down its expensive “war on terror” in Afghanistan; no one has any interest in getting involved in another “conventional war” in the Middle-East.

There is also the fact that arming rebels can backfire. America has a history of backing a rebel group to topple an autocratic dictator who was seen as a threat to U.S. national security interests, only to bring to power another faction that also did not support “Western values”. For example, America armed a group led by Osama Bin-Laden to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980s, that did not end up so well.

There is an element of worry regarding arming Syrian rebels as well. Certain factions fighting Assad, notably the Al Nusra Front, are believed to have ties to Al-Qaeda. It is important we do not empower a future enemy with advanced military technology and governmental authority.

This time, however, is different. The U.S. and its allies have been central in planning an alternative government in Syria–The Syrian National Coalition. This parallel government was designed to be an inclusive organization that will protect religious pluralism and democratic rights. The fact that such a parallel system exists should help put to rest fears of backing a potential future enemy.

Lost in this Civil War and subsequent power grab is the humanitarian crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). These are the people whom the Western world should be most concerned with supporting; those who have no aspirations of political power but merely want a chance to live a meaningful life. But in the midst of all the bloodshed and political jockeying, these people have generally been forgotten.

Oxfam recently put out a report that “…the United Nations’ “worst-case scenario” of more than a million refugees fleeing the country by June could be realized within weeks.”

“The surge was placing a “massive burden” on these countries, with the potential to “undermine stability in the region,” he warned.

‘The humanitarian crisis is worsening day by day, leaving agencies struggling to provide help that’s desperately needed,’ Lacasse said.

He also said that only 20 percent of the $1.5 million pledged by the U.S., other Western nations and Gulf Arab countries at a donor conference last month in Kuwait has been received.”

There is absolutely no excuse for Western nations to have not donated the $1.5 million necessary to support those most affected by the Syrian Civil War. While providing arms is riddled with political and military implications, providing humanitarian aid is a no-brainier. $1.5 million is nothing for the developed world, compared to the potential cost of regional instability associated with massive inflows of refugees into neighboring countries. One could argue that it has only been a month, but this financial aid has to be made available immediately—those on the ground who need the aid cannot wait while the Western world moves slowly to transfer the aid it has agreed to provide.

Yesterday, the White House agreed for the first time to directly assist the rebel forces opposing Assad with “non-lethal” support. While this is a good start to help bring an end to the Civil War, this support must occur in addition to, not instead of, humanitarian aid.

Update: U.S. non-lethal assistance will include $60 million in both non-lethal military aid AND humanitarian aid such as food rations and medical supplies. Good job John Kerry and the rest of the Obama administration! “The United States has also provided $385 million in humanitarian aid to the burgeoning flood of refugees outside Syria and displaced people inside the country.” Seems like I did not give the U.S. enough credit in it’s efforts to combat the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the surrounding region.

Humanitarian aid is a small sliver of the assistance the Western world will ultimately give in ending the violence in Syria. It is however the most beneficial in the short-run to those most affected by the civil war—Syrian refugees and IDPs. Guns and artillery have to be disseminated with great care to ensure the right people receive them. Humanitarian aid is not as sensitive a matter; credible NGOs such as Oxfam already exist to help the Syrian people, the only thing holding them back is a lack of funding.

There is no immediate end of the Syrian Civil War in sight; even Western artillery will only help topple Assad over a significant period of time. But providing aid to stop the humanitarian crisis is a much more immediate fix; once funding is available these people can receive whatever food, fuel, vaccinations and clean water they need to survive.

 Those who have died fighting for freedom can never be brought back. The years of lost economic and human development cannot be returned. All that can be done in the short term is to put an end to the humanitarian crisis affecting almost 1,000,000 Syrian refugees and IDPs. If the Western world wants to have a true Ally in a future democratic Syria, it must provide aid to those who will ultimately hold power in a democratic Syria—the Syrian people themselves.

Enhanced by Zemanta