It is indeed tragic and heart-breaking that as the Syrian civil war enters its fifth year the possibility of a political solution seems extremely remote. The conflict in Syria is one of the worst crises of the post-war era and represents a massive failure of the international community; it is also a stain on our collective conscience.
The appalling situation at the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp, on the outskirts of Damascus, is the latest humanitarian crisis to come out of Syria. The United Nations has demanded access to the residents of the camp, which has been invaded by Islamic State fighters. An estimated 18,000 people, including 3,500 children, are believed to be trapped there and starving, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The refugees are caught between bombing by the regime and sniper fire from the Islamic State.
“The situation in the camp is beyond inhumane,” Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the agency, said. “There’s conflict raging in the streets outside.”
The figures related to the war in Syria are indeed bleak: there have been 215,000 deaths; 80 per cent of the population live in poverty; Syria now has the second largest refugee population in the world, after the Palestinians, with 3.3 million people fleeing the country and 6.8 million internally displaced; life expectancy has been reduced from 75.9 in 2010 to 55.7 at the end of 2014; 83 per cent of Syrian lights have gone out; 13,000 people have been killed in Bashar al-Assad’s jails; and the Islamic State, which reared its ugly head in the conflict, controls one-third of Syrian territory.
As a result of the disastrous Iraqi war of 2003 there was never any appetite in western capitals for some sort of military intervention against the Assad regime, and Syria was just as complicated as Iraq. Furthermore, the fact that Assad was so strongly supported by Russia and Iran (and Hizbollah), as well as the emergence of Islamic State as a major player in this conflict, made things even more complex.
Of course, Assad’s backers at the UN Security Council, Russia and China, as well as Iran, should assume a great part of the responsibility for this crisis. Instead of positively influencing Assad, and advising him to be more flexible and to open genuine negotiations with his opponents (not the jihadists, of course), they backed him unreservedly. Russia and Iran supplied him with arms while Teheran also sent Hizbollah troops to back him.
The West, on the other hand, was possibly too quick to call for Assad’s immediate departure as soon as protests erupted, perhaps underestimating the Syrian President’s ruthless determination to remain in power, especially if he felt cornered with no exit strategy. Furthermore, US President Barack Obama’s declaration that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a ‘red line’ that would lead to American military involvement dented Washington’s credibility – no such action was taken after Assad used such weapons.
The US and Russia, however, later reached an agreement for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The deal was a positive development, and the UN has said that most of these weapons have now been destroyed, but it certainly did not lead to an end to the war in Syria. Furthermore, there have been a number of reports that the Assad regime is now using chlorine in barrel bombs dropped from military helicopters on civilian areas.
The international community seems to be suffering from exhaustion when it comes to Syria
Unfortunately, as the war in Syria intensified, the presence of jihadists, mainly those belonging to Islamic State, increased considerably, as the battle against Assad, an Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam), became a rallying cry for Sunni extremists from all over the world. Al-Qaeda is also present in Syria, in the form of the al-Nusra Front, and the jihadists have greatly overshadowed the moderate secular Opposition, the US-backed Syrian National Council. Some will argue that the reason why the jihadists took over the fight against Assad was because the US and its allies took far too long to arm and support the moderate rebels.
Saudi Arabia also backs the moderate Opposition, but the Saudis, as well as Qatar, have additionally supported various Islamist groups in Syria, some of which are said to have ‘informal’ links to al-Qaeda. It’s a complicated situation indeed, and a number of rebel groups once considered ‘moderate’ have actually joined the ranks of the Islamists, but not necessarily Islamic State.
The situation in Syria today is a sort of permanent stalemate, with President Assad and Islamic State together controlling over two-thirds of the country and most of the major towns and cities. What’s left of the moderate rebels as well as Syria’s civilians are squeezed in between these two sides. The terrible atrocities committed by Islamic State, both in Syria and Iraq, however, as well as its global appeal to radicalised Muslims, make it more of a threat to the West than Assad, and the Syrian President is well aware of this.
Is there any way forward in this terrible crisis? There are no easy solutions, and with time the conflict gets more and more convoluted and dangerous. The international community seems to be suffering from exhaustion when it comes to Syria, as if there are simply no options left.
While it is true that the options are indeed limited, the international community owes it to the Syrian people, who have suffered far too much, to spearhead an intense diplomatic effort aimed at stabilising the situation, brokering a truce and getting much-needed humanitarian aid to the country.
I have long argued that despite Assad’s abysmal record in this war, circumstances are such that the West must negotiate with the Syrian President. It was good to hear US Secretary of State John Kerry, in an interview with CBS News last month, say just that, and I hope that now that a nuclear framework agreement with Iran has been reached the US will focus more on trying to end the conflict in Syria.
Washington has long insisted on Assad’s departure, but the rise of Islamic State, a common enemy, as well as the grave humanitarian situation in the country, has no longer made this a priority. Last summer the US and a number of its allies, both Nato and Arab, started to conduct air strikes against the jihadist group in Syria and Iraq; these have had more of an effect in Iraq than in Syria, but we can expect more in the latter, especially if there is some sort of understanding with the Assad regime.
Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have a crucial role to play in Syria, together with the US, and together these four countries can broker an agreement, as long as there is the political will to do so. Iran and Saudi Arabia, rivals in the Muslim world and respective leaders of the Shia and Sunni branches of Islam – just look at the rival sides they are backing in Yemen – will have to make compromises for the sake of peace and stability.
The initial immediate priorities will have to be the defeat of Islamic State, the establishment of a UN-monitored truce, the unhindered supply of humanitarian aid to the people of Syria and a commitment by all sides in the conflict to take part in peace negotiations leading to a eventual political settlement in Syria. This is easier said than done, but how much more suffering can the Syrian people take?