The conflict in Syria seems to be showing no signs of abating; on the contrary the momentum on the battlefield has swung in favour of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces who have been aided to a considerable extent by Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shi’ite militia group.
Unfortunately, talks between the United States and Russia to set up a Syrian peace conference ended in stalemate
Dangerously, this war is now turning into a conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam, with Shi’ite Iran supporting Assad and the Sunni Gulf Arab states backing the rebels. There have also been repercussions in Iraq and Lebanon, which have large Shi’ite populations (Iraq’s Shi’ites make up 60 per cent of the population), while Jordan and Turkey have been overwhelmed by a massive inflow of Syrian refugees.
Unfortunately talks between the United States and Russia to set up a Syrian peace conference ended in stalemate on Tuesday, with disagreement on a whole range of issues, including whether Iran should participate in the discussions. The conference is now not expected to be held before August or even September, which is bad news. Meanwhile, the atrocities and suffering continue and the international community looks on helplessly.
In an outburst which highlighted the seriousness of the situation, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal last week accused the Syrian government of “genocide” and described the involvement in the conflict of foreign militias backed by Iran, such as Hizbollah, as “the most dangerous development”.
Susan Rice, meanwhile, in her final remarks as US Ambassador to the United Nations (who has been appointed President Barack Obama’s national security adviser) called the UN Security Council’s inaction on the Syrian war “a stain” on the organisation.
“I particularly regret that the Security Council has failed to act decisively as more than 90,000 Syrians have been killed and millions more displaced,” she said.
“The council’s inaction on Syria is a moral and strategic disgrace that history will judge harshly.”
Rice criticised Russia and China for vetoing three resolutions – once in 2011 and twice in 2012 – which condemned the violence in Syria, demanded an end to human rights violations by Syrian government forces and threatened non-military sanctions.
Indeed, the UN Security Council’s failure to take decisive action over Syria, when it was still in time to do so (the situation now is much more complicated), lies squarely on the shoulders of Moscow and Beijing, and they will, in the long term, pay a heavy price for their blind support of the Assad regime.
It is, in fact, quite extraordinary how everyone automatically points the finger at Washington when the international community fails to resolve a conflict such as the one in Syria. While I believe that Washington, and indeed the EU, could have taken concrete unilateral action earlier in this conflict, the fault for the UN’s inaction lies clearly with Russia and China, two countries which should be heavily criticised for their disgraceful stand in this war.
A meeting in Qatar of the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ a week ago, however, pledged to provide Syria’s rebels with urgent military aid; whether this is a case of “too little too late” remains to be seen.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said at the conference that the United States still remained committed to the Geneva peace plan and a transitional government picked both by Assad and the opposition. He stressed, nevertheless, that the rebels needed more support “for the purpose of being able to get to Geneva and to be able to address the imbalance on the ground”.
A number of international press reports have, in fact, quoted US officials and diplomats saying that the CIA has begun moving weapons for delivery to Syrian opposition fighters within a month. The weapons, believed to be light arms and possibly anti-tank missiles, are being moved to Jordan from a network of secret warehouses.
They will be supplied to small groups of ‘vetted’ and trained Syrian rebels. The supplies will go hand in hand with European and Arab states providing training and other weapons to the rebels.
In reality, however, because this conflict has been allowed to drag on for over two years, and because the situation in Syria is so bleak, there isn’t really a ‘right answer’ to this war. Sadly, the rebels’ ranks have been infiltrated by Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda, and nobody really knows to what extent. Backing Assad’s authoritarian (although secular) regime is obviously out of the question, and in the circumstances supplying the ‘moderate’ rebels is the right thing to do, but it is certainly risky.
Should Assad manage to remain in power, however, this will only boost Hezbollah and Iran, which is certainly in nobody’s interest. The only possible end to this conflict (but I seriously have my doubts about this) is for Assad and the opposition to agree on a transitional government to replace the current regime, and this is what the Geneva conference should be aiming at.
The US and the EU should be pressuring Russia to convince Assad to go for this option, because in the long-term there is no way the Syrian President can remain in office. In the meantime the terrible plight of the Syrian people continues.