The Syrian Crisis And World Politics

Strategic Culture Foundation
February 24, 2012

The Syrian Crisis and World Politics
Boris Dolgov
Edited by RR

====

The Syrian National Council rejects any talks with the Syrian leadership. It counts on NATO support and the repetition of the “Libyan scenario”. In January 2012 the Syrian National Council established a coordination bureau to interact with the so-called Free Syrian Army…

Militant training camps are situated in Lebanon and Turkey. NATO and some Arab states special services are responsible for training and for arms supplies. The funding comes from the Persian Gulf monarchies.

Russia’s and China’s tough stance insisting that the Syrian armed opposition’s responsibility for violence and imposing a veto on the draft saved Syria from experiencing the fate of Libya, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed and the civilian infrastructure destroyed as a result of NATO bombings and the internal armed conflict.

====

The Syrian situation has been further exacerbated and the activities of world powers and regional leaders – Turkey, Iran, Israel, the Arab League – have been intensified during the first months of 2012.

The government offered a plan for the democratization of the country’s social-political life that has started to be brought into life in Syria. At the same time armed anti-government militant groups escalated their activities, terrorizing the population. New laws on general elections, the media, self-government and political parties were adopted. Six new parties were registered by the end of February 2012. Syria has a multiparty system, there had been seven parties represented in the parliament until recently, but the constitution states the leading party power is vested in the Arab Socialist Baath Party. It’s worth noting the Baath social-economic achievements. Syria boasts quite an acceptable living standard for a major part of the population, and medical care and education are free of charge.

Municipal authorities were elected according to a new law enacted in December 2011. A new draft constitution is a hot issue for discussion now. The referendum to approve it is slated for February 26 2012. The Baath leading role clause will be cancelled if the majority says so. The new constitution promulgating a multiparty system will be the basis for parliamentary elections in May 2012. Patriotic (as they call themselves) opposition parties ready for national dialogue will take part. They encompass liberal-democrats, leftists and those who defend the interests of the Kurdish community.

Syrian authorities said the democratization process is open to all political forces, including the opposition abroad represented by the Istanbul-based Syrian National Council. But the Istanbul-based opposition says Bashar Assad‘s departure from power is a preliminary condition for any talks. The Council, headed by Burhan Ghalioun, a Syrian-French Sorbonne professor, has no program for the future.

The only slogan to unite the opposition is the overthrow of Bashar Assad. It brings together various groups with different goals, including Muslim Brothers, Sunni Muslims, Kurdish separatists, and liberal-democratic dissidents. As a rule they live in Europe or the USA. For instance, Radwan Ziadeh, head of the US-funded Damascus Center for Human Rights. The opposition Barad TV channel broadcasts from London. The Syrian Human Rights Monitoring Center headed by Syrian dissident and human rights advocate Rami Abdul Rahman is situated there too. The organization has no office and no employees. One can only guess where they get information from on dozens of peaceful demonstrators losing their lives as a result of Syrian army activities.

The Islamists are the most influential part of the “Istanbul” opposition that has teeth. The Syrian National Council rejects any talks with the Syrian leadership. It counts on NATO support and the repetition of the “Libyan scenario”. In January 2012 the Syrian National Council established a coordination bureau to interact with the so-called Free Syrian Army, an armed anti-government group representing Syrian army deserters fighting the regime, as its leaders day. In reality the major part of the Free Syrian Army, as other terrorists groups, are mercenaries – Syrian or coming from other Arab and Muslim states.

There are other armed Islamic groups besides the Free Syrian Army. Fath al-Islam (Conquest of Islam) and Junut al-Islam (Soldiers of Allah Supporters), Talia al Mukatila (Fighting Vanguard), the military wing of Muslim Brothers, as well as criminal gangs with a total strength of 2–4 thousand. Libyan Islamic militant groups headed by Abdelhakim Belhadj have also crossed the Syrian border to commit terrorist acts. Belhadj was a Libyan insurgent leader. He was assigned to be Tripoli commandant after the Gaddafi’s regime fall (at the beginning of the 2000s he was “the national emir” of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group fighting the Gaddafi regime in Libya). James Clark, a US intelligence official, Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense and the Israeli military said Al-Qaeda makes up part of the Syrian armed opposition ranks.

Militant training camps are situated in Lebanon and Turkey. NATO and some Arab states special services are responsible for training and for arms supplies. The funding comes from the Persian Gulf monarchies.

The main goal of the states supporting the Syrian “Istanbul opposition” at the beginning of 2012 was mainly a UN decision that would open the way to repeating the “Libyan scenario”. That is, to overthrow the Syrian leadership as a result of foreign military intervention under the pretext of “peaceful civilians’ protection”.

The matter is an attempt to topple Bashar Assad, who enjoys the support of the majority of Syrians, with the help of anti-government armed groups and foreign-based opposition that leads nowhere. For instance, that’s why Qatar suggested in January that an “Arab peacekeeping contingent” be sent to Syria. Then in February the League of Arab Nations, first upon the initiative of Morocco then of Saudi Arabia, tried to get a US-, Great Britain- and France-supported resolution condemning the Syrian leaders for “continuing violence” through the UN Security Council.

Russia’s and China’s tough stance insisting that the Syrian armed opposition’s responsibility for violence and imposing a veto on the draft saved Syria from experiencing the fate of Libya, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed and the civilian infrastructure destroyed as a result of NATO bombings and the internal armed conflict. In February France tabled a resolution condemning the Syrian leadership to the session of the UN General Assembly. A majority of 137 voted for, 12 against and 17 abstained.

On February 24 a “Friends of Syria” meeting is to take pace in Tunisia. The Syrian leadership received no invitation and, as Washington said, Russia’s participation is “not needed”. Russia refused to take part. The USA, Great Britain, France, Turkey, the Arab League and the “Istanbul opposition” are among the participants. They are concentrating forces for military action. US reconnaissance aircraft already fly over Syrian airspace, some sources say, ande British special operations forces are already operating in the territory of Syria.

Not once the USA and Israel condemned Syria for support of “international terrorism”, anti-Israeli Palestinian groups and “Hezbollah” movement. They count on regime change in Syria and dismemberment of the country into a few small quasi states. Rivalry between Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran for leadership in the region is also taking place. Syria is a long time Iran’s ally, the alliance relationship going back to the Iran-Iraq war, and includes religious ties (the Syrian leadership is mainly Alawite, a form of Shiite branch of Islam), it’s weakening meets the Turkey’s interests. The ruling party and leadership of Turkey, represented by moderate Muslim Islamists (the prime-minister and president come from the ranks of the Muslim Brothers Association), have sympathy for Syrian Muslim Brothers stance against the government. By and large the Persian Gulf monarchies take the same stance. They oppose Iran that is seen by them as a potential threat.
They enjoy great influence on the Arab League. Their interests coincide with the interest of leading NATO members. Still such Arab League members as Algiers, Iraq, Sudan, a significant part of social-political structure of Jordan and Lebanon (the National Patriotic Movement of General Aun) support the Syrian leadership, though they do not always make their stand known with appropriate resoluteness. The situation boosts the role of Russia and China that become key links in the process of overcoming the Syrian crisis.

Russia’s stance is solid and irreversible. It insists no foreign armed intervention in Syria is acceptable. The stance was confirmed during Russia’s and China’s veto in the UN Security Council and Russia’s Foreign Minister S. Lavrov and head of Foreign Intelligence Service M. Fradkov’s visit to Syria on February 21. Russia and Syria historically enjoy long time friendship and cooperation relationship.

The fall of Syrian regime would be a big step into the direction of further destabilization in the Middle East, like it is taking place in Lebanon, where a stand-off between supporters and opponents of the Syrian regime is taking place. Bashar Assad’s downfall would strengthen the position of radical Islamists. Such Al Qaeda leaders as al-Zawahiri declared their support for the Syrian radical opposition in February 2012. Syria has a significant weapons arsenal that can get into the Islamists hands like it took place in Libya. The history knows many examples when the West used the “jihad warriors” to achieve its strategic goals. The US September 11 2001 experience doesn’t hold them back.

First of all it’s Russia’s tough stance on Syria that saves this country from foreign intervention and NATO bombings now. By defending Syria and containing escalation of aggression against Iran, Russia stands for its own security by defending its distant borders.