The genie is out of the bottle
Feb. 11th, 2012 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterEven the death of hundreds of children, women and men couldn't sober up Russia and China. In the very day when Assad's regime killed more than 200 innocent people in Homs, these two "super" powers vetoed the resolution about Syria. Disgraceful, sad, pathetic.
Russia's argument: Syria is a sovereign country, who are we to mess into the matters of another country? We don't want the Libyan scenario to repeat, and what about the atrocities committed by those rebels?
China's reason is more than obvious: they need those resources from the Middle East very badly, and the US is dominating the region through its allies, and after waging a series of wars. As was pointed here recently, with their veto these two are missing a good chance to raise their diplomatic stature because they are taking the wrong side (again). And Assad's downfall being a matter of time (let's face it), the Syrian people will surely remember of the Russian and Chinese treachery one day, and it will backfire on China and Russia in a way they have failed to foresee.
That said, did the failure of the UN resolution on Syria set the pieces moving toward a civil war of the Libyan scenario or even disintegration of the Somalian scenario? Given the escalation in Homs, both scenarios are looking more likely than ever. But what about the West? Does that mean that a Western intervention in Syria is now imminent?
Immediately after the veto the Syrian military increased the pressure on the rebels. Homs, the city that is for the Syrian opposition what Benghazi was for the Libyan one, is under heavy siege. Apparently Assad and his butchers have gained confidence when hey saw that UN wasn't going to do anything about their atrocities. As the war advances, a political solution of the situation looks less and less possible. It is obvious that the opposition does not want to negotiate with Assad, and he doesn't look willing to make any concessions either. So we have all the conditions for a prolonged civil war. The Alawite minority is ruling a country populated by 3/4 Sunni and about 10% Christians. Assad's family and most of the military generals are from the Alawites. In this respect the situation could be compared to Iraq in the Saddam era, or the current situation in Bahrain.
What about the situation in the region as a whole? This has been discussed here before. Assad's most important ally is Iran, whose nuclear ambitions are drawing it closer to an open conflict with the West. The US, unlike their active position during the Libyan war, has a serious motive to want to contain Syria. They are reluctant to give Iran a reason to intervene. On the other side is Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) who are supporting the Syrian opposition because of their regional feud with Iran. In a previous post here, the region was called a powder keg ready to blow up. Indeed it hasn't looked this close to such a description for decades.
Meanwhile, various think-tanks in the US are working out various scenarios, including a military intervention - although the US and NATO hardly have the resources to do such a risky adventure even if they wanted it very badly (and they don't). Apart from this extreme scenario there are many others. For instance, an international isolation of the Syrian regime, which means that first Russia and China should be convinced that Assad's regime has no future. Recalling diplomats and closing the foreign embassies are just the first step.
And most importantly, the funding channels to Damascus should be sealed, while strengthening the opposition politically and materially. Because currently it is divided and decentralised. And the foreign assistance of course also includes military training of the opposition forces and supplying them with arms. This will look very much like the first stage of another military intervention (and probably Obama's second half-war), but now that the genie is out of the bottle, I am not seeing a scenario more realistic than this one.
Russia's argument: Syria is a sovereign country, who are we to mess into the matters of another country? We don't want the Libyan scenario to repeat, and what about the atrocities committed by those rebels?
China's reason is more than obvious: they need those resources from the Middle East very badly, and the US is dominating the region through its allies, and after waging a series of wars. As was pointed here recently, with their veto these two are missing a good chance to raise their diplomatic stature because they are taking the wrong side (again). And Assad's downfall being a matter of time (let's face it), the Syrian people will surely remember of the Russian and Chinese treachery one day, and it will backfire on China and Russia in a way they have failed to foresee.
That said, did the failure of the UN resolution on Syria set the pieces moving toward a civil war of the Libyan scenario or even disintegration of the Somalian scenario? Given the escalation in Homs, both scenarios are looking more likely than ever. But what about the West? Does that mean that a Western intervention in Syria is now imminent?
Immediately after the veto the Syrian military increased the pressure on the rebels. Homs, the city that is for the Syrian opposition what Benghazi was for the Libyan one, is under heavy siege. Apparently Assad and his butchers have gained confidence when hey saw that UN wasn't going to do anything about their atrocities. As the war advances, a political solution of the situation looks less and less possible. It is obvious that the opposition does not want to negotiate with Assad, and he doesn't look willing to make any concessions either. So we have all the conditions for a prolonged civil war. The Alawite minority is ruling a country populated by 3/4 Sunni and about 10% Christians. Assad's family and most of the military generals are from the Alawites. In this respect the situation could be compared to Iraq in the Saddam era, or the current situation in Bahrain.
What about the situation in the region as a whole? This has been discussed here before. Assad's most important ally is Iran, whose nuclear ambitions are drawing it closer to an open conflict with the West. The US, unlike their active position during the Libyan war, has a serious motive to want to contain Syria. They are reluctant to give Iran a reason to intervene. On the other side is Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) who are supporting the Syrian opposition because of their regional feud with Iran. In a previous post here, the region was called a powder keg ready to blow up. Indeed it hasn't looked this close to such a description for decades.
Meanwhile, various think-tanks in the US are working out various scenarios, including a military intervention - although the US and NATO hardly have the resources to do such a risky adventure even if they wanted it very badly (and they don't). Apart from this extreme scenario there are many others. For instance, an international isolation of the Syrian regime, which means that first Russia and China should be convinced that Assad's regime has no future. Recalling diplomats and closing the foreign embassies are just the first step.
And most importantly, the funding channels to Damascus should be sealed, while strengthening the opposition politically and materially. Because currently it is divided and decentralised. And the foreign assistance of course also includes military training of the opposition forces and supplying them with arms. This will look very much like the first stage of another military intervention (and probably Obama's second half-war), but now that the genie is out of the bottle, I am not seeing a scenario more realistic than this one.
