The Need To Help the Syrian People Decide Their Future
When we talk about Syria, Russian diplomats are found chanting the same old expressions about “nonintervention in the affairs of a sovereign state.”
As for the Americans, they shorten the discussion about the civil war that has now killed more than 150,000 people to Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons.
The American position is impossible, and no Russian position will pass even the simplest test.
There are more than 22 countries, including Russia, that have intervened in Syria for years, and they continue doing so. It is also known that Syrian internal affairs affect the rest of the world — especially in the huge number of refugees, such as the world has not seen since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. According to the United Nations' estimates, there are more than 2 million Syrian refugees currently residing in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.
Boats of Syrian immigrants fleeing to Europe started appearing on the Mediterranean Sea, sometimes ending with tragic results.
There are about 4.5 million displaced persons inside Syria who could describe themselves as refugees waiting for an opportunity.
Syria has stopped, to some extent, performing its role as a state in the normal sense. The administrative network broke down or transformed into a mechanism of oppression. The Baathist regime shrank to one faction in the civil war. Qadri Jamil, Syrian deputy prime minister, did not appear to recognize that this war led to a crisis and that a big part of the country fell under the control of the rebels.
The U.S. discussion on the issue of weapons of mass destruction is a ruse. Under the Washington and Moscow agreement, inspectors will only be permitted to visit sites “announced” by the faction of Bashar Assad. They do not have the power or the authority to identify suspected locations that are undeclared.
If the Russians were correct about “nonintervention,” why would they support a second conference in Geneva aimed specifically at intervening in the internal affairs of Syria?
If the Americans were correct that the issue is chemical weapons, then why are they undertaking the promotion of a big agenda that includes a type of rapprochement with the mullahs of Iran?
If the Geneva conference were held in its current form, it would only be a trick by Washington and Moscow by which to pretend that they are doing “something” about what is counted among the greatest tragedies in the world today.
The international community, including Russia and the United States, has a major interest in dealing with the Syrian tragedy more seriously. The refugee camps, as is always the case, are inhabited by the "wretched of the earth," [trapped] in a vortex of anger and misery. They turn into fertile places for traders in violence to recruit fighters, in that metaphorical swamp that nourishes terrorism like thousands of mosquitos. It would also be wise for China to take the case very seriously at a time in which its Muslim minorities show new signs of complaining.
On the other hand, by supporting Assad, Russia is working to improve its image in a big way among Muslim groups throughout the world — that image that was really shaken by its decades of brutal repression in the Caucasus, especially Chechnya.
As for Obama’s cynical maneuvers, their ultimate impact is that the United States does not have friends in Syria on either side of the conflict.
It took the world, especially Afghanistan’s neighboring states, nearly 30 years to overcome the effects of an influx of refugees resulting from the Soviet invasion. As a result of being a region not subject to the law, Afghanistan provided bases to dozens of terrorist groups, which started working against Russia, the United States and China.
This time, it will be wise for Europe to feel concerned, as the estimates indicate that about 3,000 citizens of the European Union are participating in the Syrian war alongside the different factions, including the faction following Assad. There will not be areas outside the control of the law — in the style of Somalia — on the Mediterranean, which is good news for Europe.
It will be hard to measure the long-term impact of a flood of Syrian refugees to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Iraq faces a greater risk because the de facto separation of Syrian Kurds has ignited the dreams of Kurdish independence (and this issue will be discussed at the pan-Kurdish conference in Erbil next month). Maybe the consequences of the Syrian crisis will return to a mapping of the region.
In other words, the Syrian civil war is an international issue and not dealing with it in a real way will shorten the United States’ mission.
The Syrian crisis has three facets:
The first facet is the collapse of state structures based on military security since the 1960s. Regardless of the results of the war, these structures will not be saved. Thus, the first issue is how to help Syria with building new state structures and restoring its independence.
The second facet relates to internal tensions among the revolutionary factions. The anti-Assad groups are not restricted by a great desire to go to Geneva. The proposed conference is not, in reality, about Syria. Rather, it was designed to enhance the illusion that Obama is still working with the world at a time in which it is possible for Russia to present itself as a rising power.
The third facet is possibly the most important and relates to finding ways and means to enable the Syrian people, most of whom are now silent victims of a tragedy beyond their control, to enter once again into the political arena as well as to reach an opinion critical in shaping the future.
The Syrian uprising was really the only popular revolution in the so-called Arab Spring. It has exceeded the ethnic and sectarian barrier, in its beginning at least, and embraced strong democratic aspirations.
With the transformation of the uprising into a war during which the popular forces have been neutralized, private individuals have shown their power and ability to bear risk and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives through civil disobedience and peaceful struggle. However, not everyone is capable of bearing guns or detonating car bombs. The brutal oppression that Assad unleashed succeeded in producing a violent reaction that became a slogan in the armed struggle.
However, it would be wrong to say that the only way to get rid of him comes through the barrel of a gun.
Syria needs a process of political transition realized with the assistance of masses of people [who will] return and assert themselves as the rulers of this country in the future.
The international community as a whole, including the current, cynical leaders in Washington and Moscow, has an interest in trying to make this possible.
As for the Americans, they shorten the discussion about the civil war that has now killed more than 150,000 people to Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons.
The American position is impossible, and no Russian position will pass even the simplest test.
There are more than 22 countries, including Russia, that have intervened in Syria for years, and they continue doing so. It is also known that Syrian internal affairs affect the rest of the world — especially in the huge number of refugees, such as the world has not seen since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. According to the United Nations' estimates, there are more than 2 million Syrian refugees currently residing in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan.
Boats of Syrian immigrants fleeing to Europe started appearing on the Mediterranean Sea, sometimes ending with tragic results.
There are about 4.5 million displaced persons inside Syria who could describe themselves as refugees waiting for an opportunity.
Syria has stopped, to some extent, performing its role as a state in the normal sense. The administrative network broke down or transformed into a mechanism of oppression. The Baathist regime shrank to one faction in the civil war. Qadri Jamil, Syrian deputy prime minister, did not appear to recognize that this war led to a crisis and that a big part of the country fell under the control of the rebels.
The U.S. discussion on the issue of weapons of mass destruction is a ruse. Under the Washington and Moscow agreement, inspectors will only be permitted to visit sites “announced” by the faction of Bashar Assad. They do not have the power or the authority to identify suspected locations that are undeclared.
If the Russians were correct about “nonintervention,” why would they support a second conference in Geneva aimed specifically at intervening in the internal affairs of Syria?
If the Americans were correct that the issue is chemical weapons, then why are they undertaking the promotion of a big agenda that includes a type of rapprochement with the mullahs of Iran?
If the Geneva conference were held in its current form, it would only be a trick by Washington and Moscow by which to pretend that they are doing “something” about what is counted among the greatest tragedies in the world today.
The international community, including Russia and the United States, has a major interest in dealing with the Syrian tragedy more seriously. The refugee camps, as is always the case, are inhabited by the "wretched of the earth," [trapped] in a vortex of anger and misery. They turn into fertile places for traders in violence to recruit fighters, in that metaphorical swamp that nourishes terrorism like thousands of mosquitos. It would also be wise for China to take the case very seriously at a time in which its Muslim minorities show new signs of complaining.
On the other hand, by supporting Assad, Russia is working to improve its image in a big way among Muslim groups throughout the world — that image that was really shaken by its decades of brutal repression in the Caucasus, especially Chechnya.
As for Obama’s cynical maneuvers, their ultimate impact is that the United States does not have friends in Syria on either side of the conflict.
It took the world, especially Afghanistan’s neighboring states, nearly 30 years to overcome the effects of an influx of refugees resulting from the Soviet invasion. As a result of being a region not subject to the law, Afghanistan provided bases to dozens of terrorist groups, which started working against Russia, the United States and China.
This time, it will be wise for Europe to feel concerned, as the estimates indicate that about 3,000 citizens of the European Union are participating in the Syrian war alongside the different factions, including the faction following Assad. There will not be areas outside the control of the law — in the style of Somalia — on the Mediterranean, which is good news for Europe.
It will be hard to measure the long-term impact of a flood of Syrian refugees to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Iraq faces a greater risk because the de facto separation of Syrian Kurds has ignited the dreams of Kurdish independence (and this issue will be discussed at the pan-Kurdish conference in Erbil next month). Maybe the consequences of the Syrian crisis will return to a mapping of the region.
In other words, the Syrian civil war is an international issue and not dealing with it in a real way will shorten the United States’ mission.
The Syrian crisis has three facets:
The first facet is the collapse of state structures based on military security since the 1960s. Regardless of the results of the war, these structures will not be saved. Thus, the first issue is how to help Syria with building new state structures and restoring its independence.
The second facet relates to internal tensions among the revolutionary factions. The anti-Assad groups are not restricted by a great desire to go to Geneva. The proposed conference is not, in reality, about Syria. Rather, it was designed to enhance the illusion that Obama is still working with the world at a time in which it is possible for Russia to present itself as a rising power.
The third facet is possibly the most important and relates to finding ways and means to enable the Syrian people, most of whom are now silent victims of a tragedy beyond their control, to enter once again into the political arena as well as to reach an opinion critical in shaping the future.
The Syrian uprising was really the only popular revolution in the so-called Arab Spring. It has exceeded the ethnic and sectarian barrier, in its beginning at least, and embraced strong democratic aspirations.
With the transformation of the uprising into a war during which the popular forces have been neutralized, private individuals have shown their power and ability to bear risk and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives through civil disobedience and peaceful struggle. However, not everyone is capable of bearing guns or detonating car bombs. The brutal oppression that Assad unleashed succeeded in producing a violent reaction that became a slogan in the armed struggle.
However, it would be wrong to say that the only way to get rid of him comes through the barrel of a gun.
Syria needs a process of political transition realized with the assistance of masses of people [who will] return and assert themselves as the rulers of this country in the future.
The international community as a whole, including the current, cynical leaders in Washington and Moscow, has an interest in trying to make this possible.
Next article![]( "Kerry's Hallucination")
