The Arab Spring is dead. Long live Assad?

Freedom was their cry and freedom is what they demanded. Nation upon nation saw regimes fall across the Arab world as dynastic dictators left following a surging rally for democracy. Sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East, tyrants fell both peacefully and bloodily. Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year reign fell following a long stand-off with young and old Egyptians, whilst Colonel Gadaffi’s 42-year-old rule ended bloodily after an intervention by NATO in Libya’s short, yet bitter civil war. The tide of democracy appeared to emerging across nations that for so long had suffered hardship and poverty. Young and educated Arabs wanted to be part of fledgling democracies with real futures. Not trapped in nations where human rights, basic amenities and jobs are hard to come by. Surely the next to fall would be the House of Assad?

Two years have passed since the Syrian uprising began and what has fast developed into the region’s bloodiest civil war. The death toll is estimated to be around 70,000. More than half a million refugees have escaped into neighbouring Jordan. More worryingly, following the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, President Assad appears to show no intent in relenting. The West appears hapless in deciding whether intervention would not only work, but whether it is desirable.

The city of Homs.

The problem for the West remains political, moral and straightforward realism. Politically, the inability for likely intervening nations like the US and UK have been blocked in the UN by Syria’s long term allies China and most notably Russia. The Chinese feel uncomfortable condoning any external upheaval when they have their own dissidents within Tibet and Xinjiang province, any support may simply lead to calls for greater autonomy within its own borders. Russia, on the other hand, has felt the full force of international criticism and indignation of supporting a murderous regime. Yet for Russia, it is far more complicated. Not only, like China, have they had difficulties with its own ethnic groups, most noticeably in the Caucuses, but more fundamentally, Syria has been one of the staunchest and longest serving allies in the region. As a client of Russian military hardware, as well as providing a Mediterranean port for the Russian fleet, why would President Putin feel obliged to cave into Western demands when it would seriously lose out?

Morally, the problem remains more painful. When I last wrote about Syria, the estimation of deaths was around 25,000 mark. Humanitarian reports remain bleak. Women and children are destitute. President Assad remains intent on powering through what he believes to be external forces intruding in Syria’s internal affairs. Two years into the war and it now appears that Assad is not looking for an escape route. If half a million or more die, it is cost he is willing to face. There the problem lies for the West. Within eight months, the death toll has almost quadrupled. It has already dithered since the fighting began and now it finds itself with a growing casualty list and a more radical Islamic opponent. With evidence of chemical weapons now emerging – the so-called red line before intervention, ordinary Syrians killed in the crossfire and the possibility of a less amenable successor to Bashar Al-Assad. They have seen that post-Gadaffi; Libya is dealing with external enemies both within and outside its borders in Mali and Algeria, most notably Al-Qaeda. An intervention in Syria may simply lead to a full-scale war across the whole Middle East.

Bashar al-Assad: Defiant

Finally, the straightforward realism is thus: if the rebels cannot be trusted and America has no real appetite to intervene then what is likely to happen to Syria? The two most important questions are whether Russia is willing to commit its support both diplomatically and militarily. If an intervention appears unlikely then, Vladimir Putin will simply continue with its support. Secondly, how far is Israel willing to sit on the sidelines? Only this weekend there were reports of attacks by the Israeli Defence Force within Syria following suggestions that Hezbollah had obtained chemical weapons. With the conflict on its doorstep and Al Qaeda operating freely within some of its towns and cities, it is hard to foresee the Israeli military standing down.

Politicians and diplomats are fully aware of the risks of non-intervention. The memory of Srebrenica and Rwanda remain particularly vivid within the UN and NATO. Yet, perhaps the time has passed for intervention. The Arab Spring is dead. As it stands, who knows what will happen.

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Intervention remains a word that causes many diplomats to gasp. To what extent does intervention become an occupation and is there a point where intervention goes beyond a point of feasibility? Politicians have learnt to live with the consequences amidst the tides of history of whether to intervene within a country’s affairs. The demise of the Somali state was exacerbated by the White House’s decision to remove US troops after the failed ‘Black Hawk Down’ mission. The UN’s inertia in 1994 only led to greater intensity of killings in Rwanda. Yet, politicians know all too well of the risks that military action can ensue. The toxic-effect of the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003 and the on-going stalemate in Afghanistan continue to poison the well of intention.

For over 18 months, the battle between the Assad regime and anti-government rebels has turned Syria into a warzone. Only recently Syria could be described as one of the most stable nations in the region, yet today it has the capacity to create an all out war in the Middle East. The reports of mass artillery bombardments in the cities of Homs and Aleppo, plus the massacres of women and children is creating a humanitarian disaster. With estimates of over 25,000 deaths, possibly more, is a foreign-led intervention an ideal proposition for the situation or is it bound to make the situation worse?

Fight to the end?

So far, the diplomatic efforts have produced little. Syria’s historically strongest ally, Russia, has continuously refused to back sanctions at the UN. A Libyan-style intervention or arming of opposition forces is deemed impossible. Yet what other solutions remain? The West’s idea that Russia could offer Assad and his inner circle political immunity in Moscow was voted down too. To what extent are we prepared to turn a blind eye to justice in the interest of peace and the deaths of fewer? Do we reach a threshold where justice becomes immaterial?

Syria has not signed the International Criminal Court’s treaty and therefore as things stand, Assad can face no international court. However; it is true of anti-government troops as well. They may say they are killing in the name of freedom, but no one can deny the massacres that have taken place on either side. The original protests that led to children having their fingernails removed have led to torture and summary executions. What they may perceive as ‘natural justice’ on the battlefield cannot be translated as humanly dignified. The country is systematically combusting, as are the rules that most humans would see as sacred.

From a diplomatic perspective, is it simple to purely blame Russia for blocking resolutions? Whilst no one can ignore the atrocities, who’s not to say that on previous occasions other countries, particularly in the West, have protected their own interests. There is a degree of old-school Cold War politics. One could argue why Sri Lanka or Israel haven’t had any of their politicians in the dock, these instances on paper show clear breaches of human rights or crimes against humanity, yet impunity remains the watch word. There are crimes and no one likes to see criminals to evade justice, but Syria and Assad wouldn’t be the first to escape the net.

This war, as things stand, has more to come, and who knows how long for. The fact Kofi Annan left his job as peace envoy shows how difficult it is to overcome. If Assad already knows what could wait, then who is not to say he will go out in glory as Gadaffi tried. Who’s not to say that a quarter of a million more people may die through chemical weapons? Then again, if he is brought to justice then how does one prove the atrocities? There are very few journalists and do they have any proof? Not all news coming out of the country can be verified.

Be sure, Assad is resolute but is weak. The question is what do you do about it?

Tweeting in a war zone.

As the world adapts to new technologies and new communications, it is changing the way we interact with each other socially and is changing the way the world operates politically. Propaganda is nothing new and its proliferation has been used to amass armies and turn nations against each other. Repressed people are now able to voice their subversions through Twitter and broadcast the acts of violence by governments through YouTube. The internet has emancipated the voices to the West and to pressurise the governments of secretive and cruel regimes. Yet, how effective is it and are governments now catching up with this technological proliferation?

The ‘Green Revolution’ during the 2009 elections Iran was the inaugural example of a digital rebellion. After questionable results were returned and the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed electoral victory, young Iranians poured onto the streets of Tehran to protest at the result. With hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters amassing across the capital and the world’s attention heaping pressure on the Iranian Government, the Ministry of Information banned all foreign journalists. Their expulsion saw the Revolutionary Guard turn violent against its own people, without the world’s gaze scrutinising its every move. Yet, they didn’t account for mobile phones recording every move and the use of Twitter to organise public rallies. Although it did not force the government out, it highlighted their ability to turn violent on its own people and the disharmony among the Iranian population.

The recent uncertainty in Syria has been difficult to report due to the government in Damascus closing the borders to foreigners. Despite regime change in the region, with the help of new communications, the Syrian government has been effective in curbing the use of the internet. Not only has it switched off the network to prevent protests but more concerning it has forced protestors to deny unrest and promote the regime’s values online. What is also concerning is the inability of Western organisations to discern what is true and what might not be true. This week saw the press duped into the abduction of a lesbian Syrian blogger, it turned out it was a man from Scotland. Wars are now fought with public relations teams; the recent conflicts in Israel and Libya have been notorious through the role of government spokesmen. Journalists are driven around warzones like city tour buses and press releases are issued as prolifically as canon fire.

We may be unable to understand the truth fully and unfortunately more people may lose their lives before anything changes. The ability of the Chinese Government to control its firewall shows how effective these measures can be implemented. However, leaders can no longer prevent news of uprisings from escaping their borders. Long gone are the days of Glasnost and State TV monopolising the news channels, the BBC and CNN are simply a click away. Assassins come in the form of the sniper and blogosphere.