Syria is on the edge of a bloody civil war. With the U.S. discredited in the region, the BRIC nations may offer the best diplomatic chance for averting more bloodshed.
Syria is heading for a bloody, sectarian civil war. The mutual kidnappings, torture, beheadings and displacement of populations taking place between the Sunni and Alawi communities in the central city of Homs – often described as “the capital of the revolution” – send a fearsome signal of what might be in store for the rest of the country.
To avert this descent into hell must surely be the immediate priority of Arab leaders and the international community.
The present Syrian regime has been one of the most durable in the Middle East, lasting for almost half a century since the Ba‘th party seized power in 1963. The Assads – father and son – have ruled since 1970. However, the current crisis poses a particular danger to the regime because, almost for the first time, it faces a conjunction of internal and external challenges.
Of course, external challenges to Syria have been frequent, including Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was aimed at expelling Syrian influence as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization, and drawing Lebanon into Israel’s orbit; the 1998 crisis, when Syria faced the possibility of a two-front war with Turkey and Israel; and then the biggest challenge of all: the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Had it been successful, Syria may well have been the next target.
When Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, was murdered in 2005, Syrian troops were forced out of Lebanon and the Syrian regime threatened with overthrow. In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon to destroy Syria’s ally, Hizbollah; it then attacked Gaza to destroy another Syrian ally, Hamas.
The mentality of the Syrian regime – and the mind of President Bashar al-Assad himself – has been shaped by these recurrent life-threatening crises. They were largely responsible for making the regime what it is – authoritarian, defensive, brutal, neglectful of political reforms, over-anxious to exercise control over the citizenry, the media, the universities, the economy – indeed over every aspect of society.
Syria is now under extreme pressure, as is Iran, which has for years also faced systematic demonization, intimidation and sanctions. Determined to protect its own nuclear monopoly, Israel, it seems, is attempting to push the United States into war against Iran – and if not war then still more sanctions.
The Syrian regime’s instinct has been to interpret the current uprising as one more conspiracy. Taken by surprise, its immediate response was brutal repression: the use of live fire from the very beginning at Dar‘a in mid-March. No doubt, President Bashar had imagined that his nationalist stance gave him immunity from popular uprisings. But, faced by the escalating crisis, his leadership has been found wanting; his speeches and promises of reform were late and unconvincing. His failure to seize the initiative with radical proposals showed a lack of political imagination. The killings have fatally undermined his legitimacy.
Photo Credit: Syriana2011
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Tessica
BS low – ratioainlty high! Really good answer!
Dr Bellows
This sort of stuff never usually makes it’s way out of the red cell. But somehow the Jennie is out of the bottle.
Matt
They should have listened to Bob Gates, too late now.
Mladen
There is only one thing desperately needed, and that is agreement on free and fair elections – including international observers. Would be good that all intending to run sign statement: “I support equality in front of law for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or political affiliation. Any legal article contravening those should not have space in Syrian legal system.” Once solved that, shooting should stop, military forces should pull in designated areas and political campaign should start. If Nepal did it, why Syria could not? However, it seems some people prefer Iraqi to Polish scenario of regime change.
stoicheion
“Three Russian warships are already present in the Mediterranean Sea, but their aim doesn’t seem to stabilize the Syrian mess, but rather to prevent a repeat of Libyan campaign. Comments?”
Other then being sunk, they won’t accomplish much. Russia was stretched to the max by their invasion of a postage sized country with a total of 12 tanks and no aircraft. Against a competent military they are toast. A paper bear, so to speak.
stoicheion
Iraq WAS successful. That is as far as I got before I realised the author was on something potent and probably illegal. I saw no point in going any farther.
Henrik
Dream on, Patrick.
gitanjali karki
the arab-levant countries are going thru what the bitter-sweet effects of change……………they just have to look at the same history of transition of the BRIC counties n do “damage control, RIGHT NOW”, we cannot let achievements of human civilization be reduced to ashes………no matter where on EARTH…..!!!
We all got to give the the CHANCE to development with dignity….of their culture and indegenious knowlege and propel the Youth esp, they hv soooo much dreams n aspirations …..help it to make their dream to come true…..just like OURS….!!!
WE GOT JUS ONE EARTH…..N WE ARE IN IT TOGETHER…EH!!!
HHop
Three Russian warships are already present in the Mediterranean Sea, but their aim doesn’t seem to stabilize the Syrian mess, but rather to prevent a repeat of Libyan campaign. Comments?
Anon
What’s there to say? Aside from vague praise of BRIC the author doesn’t give any method on how they could (or why they would) defuse the situation, and Russia obviously has no desire to (as long as their base in Syria remains unscathed).
neither China, Brazil, or India have shown a desire to get involved to avert bloodshed.
What does he exactly expect Brazilians of syrian descent to do?
What about India?
Why does he think China would be willing to use economic means to defuse the situation beyond support for the current regime (which will simply deepen tensions)?
Seeing as the BRIC nations have very little they could do (except for Russia, who has shown a lack of desire to do anything beyond preventing a UN coalition from doing anything as the country dissolves) Staying out of it altogether would be the right choice.
The BRIC ‘bloc’ is hardly a united group, it is rather an economic grouping. Each is to some degree a regional power, but none of which are in close proximity to the Middle East.
Basically the only choice is to either go for the devil, a UN coalition headed by (or giving a significant part to) the US (for those who seeing the US around the world is anathema), or the deep blue sea, a dissolving bloody Syria.
Sourav
I agree with Anon.The author describes the Syrian situation and the background in detail, but fails to back his contention as on why BRIC nations should and would intervene, neither he offers any plausible way of implementing such intervention.