Alphen, Netherlands. 7
January. “The enemies of the people are the enemies of
God, and the enemies of
God will burn in hell.” Syrian President Assad left
little grounds for optimism in his 6 January ‘peace’ initiative. Clearly there can now be no peace with Assad
but what will it take to get rid of him and what would happen if he went?
The need is
pressing. The United Nations last week estimated
the death toll in the Syrian civil war at come sixty thousand since
March 2011, possibly many more.
International peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi warned that if the war is not
ended in 2013 Syria could indeed turn into a “hell”. However, whilst the so-called Geneva Plan lays
the foundation for a resolution by Syrians for Syrians it is extremely unlikely
any ‘big deal’ can now be reached between the regime and the Syrian National
Coalition. Transition from war to a stable Syria will thus demand
the removal of Assad and the direct involvement of the international community.
Equally, whilst the removal of Assad would be
the first step to peace it would not be an end in itself. Assad is right about
one thing. Fundamentalist Sunni fighters
and what British Prime Minister David Cameron recently described as a “new
cohort of al-Qaeda linked extremists” are all too apparent in the
opposition’s ranks. If the regime simply
implodes doubtless a new power struggle will begin.
Furthermore, an enduring Syrian peace will
also only be possible if the conflict is detached from a wider regional Realpolitik. Iran has been supporting the regime with both
expertise and munitions, with substantial evidence of direct involvement by the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whilst Russia and China have blocked any direct outside intervention. Indeed, the regional strategic ambitions of
Iran and its proxy Hezbollah-led conflict with Israel have critically
exacerbated the war. Equally, whilst an arms embargo has been formally imposed evidence abounds that it exists in name only. The Coalition has been receiving directly or
indirectly both small arms and man-held anti-aircraft missiles from the Gulf
States and Saudi Arabia to counter the regime’s use of air power.
What would a 'credible' international presence on the ground look like and under what mandate? Arab League, UN, NATO, EU or a beefed up Contact Group? Experience of political
transition in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya (hardly encouraging) suggests that early political reconciliation would be critical but only possible if reprisal killings are prevented
and the humanitarian suffering of all alleviated. A new seat of
government in Damascus would also need to be rapidly established and protected, committed to a political timetable for transition underpinned by the early disarmament and rehabilitation of
combatants. The armed
forces would need to be re-oriented and essential services and the judicial
system preserved to provide stability. Critically, senior members of the Assad
regime charged under law would need to get a fair trial and justice seen to work. National
elections woven into a new constitution would also be vital with extreme elements in the opposition
forced to face a choice; reconciliation or exclusion. Would Russia and China agree? Maybe this is the moment for a Tony Blair-type Sextet for Syria - America, Arab League, China, EU and Russia?
But here’s the
thing. For Syria to find true peace a new coherence will
need to be forged that reflects a Syria very different to that of 1966 when
Assad’s father seized power. That will
not be easy. Assad’s fate is linked to that of Syria's many minorities such as the Shia community, specifically the Alawhites from which he hails. Syria is 90% Arab, with
some two million Kurds plus other smaller groups making up the balance of a 22
million population that has exploded by over 300% since 1966. Syria is also 87% Muslim with Shias making up
13% of the population, as against 74% Sunnis with the rest comprised of small
Christian, Druze and other communities. In
the past the Baathist constitution protected minorities and until those
self-same minorities feel secure peace is unlikely to endure.
Moscow’s admission last
month that Assad may fall from power allied to Vice-President Farouk al-Sharaa assertion
that no-one can win the Syrian civil war and that a transitional government is
now the only way forward suggests the war is indeed at a tipping point. Sadly, no-one can expect peace soon. An enduring Syrian peace
would only be possible with the consistent support of a unified international
community and that simply does not exist.
Even if it did would any state be prepared to commit land forces under
UN mandate to secure the peace? Who would be prepared to offer the huge resources vital to re-settle
peaceably displaced populations, promote peaceful transition and re-build a smashed Syria?
If peace miraculously came tomorrow with the fall of Assad Syrians would face a vacuum created by a hopelessly split international community. Saving Syria from Assad is but the first step. The Syrian civil war is not simply about the transfer of power from a national minority to a majority it is about the future geopolitical shape of the Middle East. Without real support from us all Syria will continue to be a danger to itself and its neighbours in a very dangerous region.
Julian Lindley-French
