2012

FEB 29

THE SANDS OF TIME: THE SYRIAN STALEMATE (PART 3 OF THE SAND OF TIME SERIES ON SYRIA) The sole purpose of the resolution was to address the ever deepening crisis in Syria and prevent a growing threat to the region as whole. The text of the resolution simply supported an Arab League plan that Bashar and his inner circle had agreed to during the Arab League inspection. In principle the Bashar administration had agreed with the Arab League inspectors to cease fire and promised a peaceful resolution and dialogue with the opposition. An overwhelming support for the Arab League plan by all permanent members of the UN Security Council would have given the UN general assembly a unified authority to impose further requirements and sanctions upon the Bashar regime in the event that the regime failed to comply. As of 29th February 2012, it is reasonable to describe the stage of the conflict in Syria as nothing other than a brutal stalemate with the armed opposition militia on one side, the government military hell bent on crushing them on the other and unarmed and desperate civilians caught in the middle. There are many reasons for this (1) the opposition seem to be well organised in military terms compared to a few months ago and this could be as a result of increased financing, defections from the national army and perhaps an influx of volunteers from surrounding Arab countries, and (2) the public disagreements between power brokers has directly given confidence to each side that they are in a stronger position to emerge victorious as the conflict rages on thus unwilling to come to the negotiating table, (3) the opposition feel the sense of history on their side vis a vie the outcome of other similar revolutions in neighbouring countries and it is in their interest not to give ground, and on the other hand (4) the regime senses it has now bought more time to land that blow and end the insurrection decisively. However, what is transparent is that NATO, EU, and some Arab League members appear to side with the opposition while China, Iran and Russia are perhaps on the side of the Bashar regime but in truth nobody really knows who is on which side and why. Governments have always been notoriously good at saying one thing in public and doing another thing in private. The only people who are truly divided in support are Syrian people. What is also evident is that the Syrian conflict has exposed some deep divisions within the UN system and raised fundamental questions regarding the usefulness and credibility of the UN an organ especially its operation of the veto system and commitment to world peace. The proponents argue that the veto system is designed for that reason so that there can never be unilateral action, and can point to numerous instances where the veto system has been used without controversy. Furthermore, the UN has justified it existence through its worthwhile global efforts and has prevent numerous wars, and thus it is an indispensable part of human existence and a positive platform for international dialogue and cooperation. Opponents argue that it is not the idea of the UN that is bad it is the fundamental flaws inherent in its design that has made the UN operationally inefficient. The UN has remained a toothless bull dog which often barks slowly, never bites and only operates in the interest of powerful nations and institutions. Therefore, the stalemate in Syria is symptomatic of an inept system that has outlived its usefulness and could do with a complete overhaul. Furthermore, opponents view the UN as an institution that often crawls to a unified position whenever the required action appear to conflict the vested interests of powerful permanent members of the Security Council. Opponents point to examples such as the failure to prevent the Rwanda genocide which eventually claimed over one million lives, opponents argue that the UN stood aside while thousands of civilians were massacred in Bosnia, Cambodia and Vietnam, what about the failure to present a unified voice against apartheid and the UNs inability to stop the conflict in Congo despite having the largest peace keeping force on the ground, then there are operational failures in Sudan (the Darfur conflict), East Timor, Sierra Leone, the UN Please visit the following: http://www.visumglobal.co.uk (Premier provider of management consultancy services and much more) Blog on Africa: http://www.africa21stcentury.blogspot.com Blog on Zambian Economics: http//:www.zambian-economist.com

2012
FEB 29

stood aside in Somalia and by doing so effectively allowed the war lords to plunge Somalia into a living nightmare and the most lawless country the planet has ever seen. For opponent there is enough evidence to overhaul the system and make it more operationally efficient but the stumbling block has been the self interests of powerful nations. Opponents also point to the fact that dictators, war lords and oppressive regimes understand that the UN is inept and lacks any real power to enforce anything and thus are completely free to do whatever they want. The UN is in a difficult situation due to its non interference policy which seems to be at odds with the speed at which the UN got involved in Libya via NATO and opponents argue that it was purely done to protect the supply of Libyan oil and gas to powerful nations. In addition Colonel Gaddafi had a well publicised lukewarm relationship with his Arab comrades and his rhetoric often angered westerners, his growing influence in sub Sahara and the fear of the conflict spilling into the European backyard prompted the UN to take action quickly. However, contrast that with the UN position on Zimbabwe, Bahrain, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. How many lives would it take for the UN to interfere and call it civilian protection in Syria? It is also interesting to note that some of the members of the Arab League that tabled a resolution on Syrian are not exactly what one might call civilian governments with good records on gender equality, rule of law, political morality, transparency, etc. By 29th February 2012, the city of Homs had been under constant attack for 23 days straight and the UN own report indicated that over 7500 civilians had died so far but one can only assume that this was only the verifiable body count that excludes executions, hidden mass graves and disappearances. Often in such conflicts true figures are always five times the reported amount (there is no independent way to verify the true number of victims). There is no doubt that Gaddafi was a tyrant but how is he any different from Bashar Al-Assad, and other dictators on the planet that kill their own citizen be it through secret police murders, government sponsored terrorism, force imprisonment of political opponents and those who express opposing views, withdraw of resources and leaving defenceless people to die in thousands or directly assault on civilians. The other reason for the stalemate could perhaps be found by solving the Bear, the Eagle, the Lion, the Rooster and the Dragon conundrum. Why would the Bear and the Dragon refuse to play ball given that the Eagle, the Rooster, the Lion and all other guests on the table were willing to accept a revised simpler resolution that did not impose much on the Assad apart from committing to a time frame and sticking to the proposal? There are a number of possible reasons that includes the possibility that Assad allowed the Arab League to carry out the assessments knowing to well that the process will culminate in a resolution and given that scenario Russia and China would play ball and veto the plan. In essence it was just a double bluff by the Bashar regime. The second reason could be that Russia and China refused because it meant losing leverage in the Middle East given that Russias only naval base in the Middle East is in Syria and Russia is the number one supplier of weapons to Syria. China on the other hand has had a long standing business and political relations with Syria. The third reason could be that it was one way for Russia and China to announce to the world that the west no longer rules the roost and thus can no longer be compelled to play along anymore. The last time the Bear and the Dragon played along, NATO went beyond the rules of the game i.e. mandate of resolution 1973 in Libya and thus could not be trusted again. The fourth reason could very well be that perhaps they know something the rest of us mortals dont so the only way is for them to use the veto to openly reject the plan. It is also evident that Russia and China are one of the fastest growing economies in the world and one can only assume that if you have an ambition to be the best and remain the best you need all the friends you can get and it is particularly vital if such a friend has oil and gas reserves. The fifth reason could be that any resolution would have made Assad feel cornered and Please visit the following: http://www.visumglobal.co.uk (Premier provider of management consultancy services and much more) Blog on Africa: http://www.africa21stcentury.blogspot.com Blog on Zambian Economics: http//:www.zambian-economist.com

2012
FEB 29

isolated in essence turning him into a desperate dictator there by adopting a more aggressive approach towards the opposition and civilians which would result even in more casualties. My question is that isnt the Bashar regime doing this already without a resolution? On the other hand, we should not be under the illusion that the Bashar regime has no supporters in Syria. Historically, in countries ruled by right wing Muslim politicians, Christians and other minorities have found it difficult to practice their faith openly. The only two countries in the Middle East where Christian churches are not fire bombed or living under oppression overtly in a majority Muslim population is in Egypt and Syria. Given that scenario it is reasonable to suggest that the lack of conceited effort to intervene is a ploy to gain more certainty regarding what sort of regime and ideology will emerge in the event of the collapse of the Al-Assad tyranny given that Libya, Tunisia and Egypt have not turned out according to Western expectations. It could also be that there is some quiet hope that perhaps Bashar could do the impossible and ride the tide of opposition, purge himself of the stench of hardliners and form a unity government that is more outward looking, moderate and modern. Nobody knows whether such a situation is even possible and what the reaction of the Syrian people and the international community would be. Despite all the possible reasons, assumptions and scenarios the country will not be in a state of stalemate for long and in the absence of a comprehensive roadmap to peace the only inevitable conclusion is a period of civil strife followed by a bloody all out civil war, interspaced by a period of civilian rule and back to totalitarianism. DR M. MUKANGA Email: Mukanga@visumglobal.co.uk
Principal Director of Visum Global UK and Kurgus Investment Zambia and a contributor to the Zambian Economist and Africa 21st Century Blogs and a number of other online publications on wide range of issues from Technology, Engineering, Manufacturing to Social Changes and Development in Africa. It is illegal to reproduce, reprint and use in any form without explicit permission of the author Dr M.Mukanga Copyright @Visum Global Ltd, 2012 www.visumglobal.co.uk

Please visit the following: http://www.visumglobal.co.uk (Premier provider of management consultancy services and much more) Blog on Africa: http://www.africa21stcentury.blogspot.com Blog on Zambian Economics: http//:www.zambian-economist.com