Syria uprising falls victim to power plays
By Ramzy Baroud
Syrians continue to be victimized, not only in violent clashes with the Syrian
military, but also by regional and international players with various agendas.
Protests in Syria began on January 26, and a more inclusive uprising was set in
motion on March 15. The initial demand was for serious political reforms, but
this was eventually raised to a demand for full regime change, encompassing the
unconditional departure of President Bashar al-Assad and his Ba'ath Party,
which has ruled Syria for decades.
Soon, there was a deadlock. The uprising failed to weaken the
links between the regime, army and other security agencies. It also remained
confined to areas outside the two most populated cities, Damascus, in the
southwest, and Aleppo in the north.
On the other hand, protests seemed extensive and prevalent enough to reflect a
real sense of outrage at government practices, which grew with the reported
deaths of Syrians all over the country. Despite a relentless military
crackdown, and the killing of 3,500 Syrians (according to a recent United
Nations human-rights office report), the government has not been able to quell
the uprising, nor to provide a convincing political initiative that could spare
Syria further bloodletting.
It could be argued that the impasse originated in Syria's own political
culture, espoused by the Ba'ath Party's legacy of shunning dialogue in times of
crisis. More, those who ultimately designated themselves as Syria's opposition
remain largely divided, and often seemed to provide conflicting roadmaps for
achieving democracy.
Earlier revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were spared the terrible fate of
people's priorities becoming merely another agenda item to be decided by
outside powers. Both revolutions had quickly reached the critical mass required
to topple their dictators, denying outsiders the chance of meddling in the
outcome.
The situation in Syria, however, developed at a different pace. The uprising
lacked the full support of the urban middle class. The army neither broke away
from the ruling party, nor remained neutral. Additionally, months of violence -
in which a successful Western military intervention in Libya toppled the regime
of Mummer Gaddafi - provided outside powers with the needed time to position
themselves as the caretakers of Syria's future. In other words, a popular
uprising was decidedly hijacked and is currently being managed from Western and
Arab capitals.
It was as though ordinary Syrians began realizing that their vision of
achieving revolution from within was futile, and they bought into the illusion
that only outside intervention could bring lasting change. These voices were
emboldened by members of the Syrian National Council - seen as the lead
opposition to the Ba'ath regime - whose behavior seemed to model that of the
Libyan National Transitional Council.
The latter had blithely welcomed the North Atlantic Treaty organization (NATO)
to Libya, initially to "protect civilians" from possible Libyan army
retaliation, but eventually to carry out an airstrikes campaign that largely
increased the number of deaths in Libya.
Adopting a model that rationalizes foreign intervention - which is incapable of
exacting change without extreme violence - will bring horrible consequences for
the Syrian people and the whole region. With the Syrian government failing to
win the trust of large segments of the Syrian population, the opposition's
growing dependency on outside forces, and some Arab media networks fanning the
flames of sectarianism and civil war, the Syrian deadlock is morphing into
something even more dangerous: a Lebanon-style civil war or a Libyan-style
foreign military intervention.
The fate of Syria is no longer likely to be influenced by the Syrian people
themselves, nor by their government. All eyes are now on the United States. US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to clarify the US position in her
recent comments. In the case of Libya, NATO and Arab countries banded together
"to protect civilians and help people liberate their country without a single
American life lost", she said.
But in other cases, as in Syria, "To achieve that same goal, we would have to
act alone, at a much greater cost, with far greater risks and perhaps even with
troops on the ground." For now, according to Clinton, US priorities in the
region would have to remain focused on "our fight against al-Qaeda; defense of
our allies; and a secure supply of energy".
Russia and China, worried that another US regime change venture could
jeopardize their interests in the region, remain steadfast behind Damascus and
critical of the factions that oppose the Assad regime. "We are concerned with
news of ongoing aggression by extremist gunmen such as those which took place
in Homs, Hama and Idlib in recent days with the provocative aim of forcing
security agencies and the army in Syria to retaliate, and then launching a
campaign via international media outlets," said Russian Foreign Affairs
Minister Sergey Lavrov in a recent statement.
The lines are thus drawn, between a US-led Western camp and Russia and its own
camp, which vehemently rejects a repeat of a Libyan scenario in a volatile
region of unmatched geopolitical significance.
Whatever the outcome of this tussle, the Syrian uprising is increasingly being
deprived of its own initiative. Currently, the issue of Syria is being
entrusted to the Arab League, which lacks both credibility (since it is too
divided between regional interests) and any history of successful political
initiatives.
On November 2, Syria announced that it had agreed to an Arab League plan which
called for the withdrawal of security forces from the streets, the release of
prisoners and talks with the opposition.
However, after this did not happen and the violence continued, the Arab League
voted on Saturday to suspend Syria's membership.
At the same time, King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan urged Assad to stand
down. He told the BBC that if he were in Assad's position, he would start talks
to ensure an orderly transition.
"I would step down and make sure whoever comes behind me has the ability to
change the status quo that we're seeing," King Abdullah stated in an interview
with BBC World News television.
Despite the Arab League's decision to suspend Syria, it is very probable that
some Arab countries are keen to employ the league in a similar fashion to the
way it was used with the war on Libya: a mere springboard that eventually
allowed NATO's war to take place.
Signs of such a scenario are becoming clearer, especially following the
league's vote to suspend Syria. In a New York Times editorial on November 8,
the role of the Arabs seems to be confined to just that. The Arab League
"should eject Syria and urge the United Nations Security Council to condemn Mr
Assad and impose international sanctions against the regime", the Times
counseled.
"Russia and China will find it harder to block a Security Council resolution -
as they did in October - if the Arab world calls for action that goes beyond
the sanctions already imposed by the United States and Europe."
And so the saga continues. If Syria doesn't wrestle its fate from the hands of
these self-serving forces, the Syrian uprising and Syria as a whole will
continue to be marred by uncertainties and foreboding possibilities.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated
columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is
My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story(Pluto Press,
London).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
