The horrific killing of 108 civilians, including 49 children and 34 women in the Syrian town of Houla is the worst single massacre to have taken place since the country’s uprising started 14 months ago. The Syrian opposition, eyewitnesses, human rights groups and the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights have all blamed the Syrian army and the shabiha, a militia that supports President Bashar al-Assad, for this atrocity.
Russia should take a clear stand and liveup to its international obligations- Anthony Manduca
A spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that initial investigations suggest the majority of the victims were “summarily executed in two separate incidents” while fewer than 20 were killed by artillery or shell fire.
A few days ago UN monitors in Syria reported a new massacre – the bodies of 13 men were found bound and shot near the eastern city of Dair Alzour.
“All of the bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and some appear to have been shot in the head from a short distance,” the UN said in a statement.
As the situation in Syria deteriorates it has become very clear that the UN-backed ceasefire brokered by former UN secretary general Kofi Anan six week ago has failed. Proof of this is the fact that since UNmonitors arrived in Syria in mid-April 1,300 people have been killed.
So far 15,000 people have been killed since the revolt against the rule of Bashar al-Assad began in March of last year and sadly all the signs are pointing to the situationgetting worse.
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon last week repeated a warning that Syria could be moving towards “catastrophic” civil war while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused Russia of contributing to a potential civil war in Syria as a result of its policies on the conflict. Clinton said: “The Russians are telling me they don’t want to see a civil war. I have been telling them their policy is going to contribute to a civil war.”
There is no doubt that the behaviour by Russia and China at the UN Security Council vis-à-vis Syria has been absolutely disgraceful – these two countries have twice vetoed resolutions condemning the behaviour of the Syrian regime – and Russia, as a close ally of Syria, could use its influence over Assad in a much more constructive way. After all, US President Barack Obama was instrumental in convincing then Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – a long time US ally – to step down last year.
The pressure for some type of military action in Syria has definitely increased as a result of the Houla massacre, and UN envoy Kofi Anan described the Houla atrocity as a “tipping point”. However, it is doubtful any military action will take place as Russia and China have made it clear – even in the aftermath of the massacre – that they are still opposed to military intervention.
Nevertheless, a military option would be extremely risky and could lead to regional instability. Unlike the recent military intervention in Libya, the situation in Syria is much more complicated.
Air strikes in Syria could provoke a reaction by Iran and Hizbollah in Lebanon, two long-time allies of Syria. The country’s diverse ethnic and religious composition could be another complication if the country dissolves into chaos and the potential for a regional Shi’ite – Sunni conflict also exists.
Furthermore, the Syrian regime is well-armed and a long sustained bombing campaign would be required to defeat it, something the West has no appetite for at this moment in time.
However, the international community cannot simply observe what is going on in Syria, declare that “it’s complicated” and do nothing. After the Houla atrocity a number of countries including the US, Canada, the UK, France, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy and Turkey all expelled senior Syrian diplomats, while the US and Qatar announced new sanctions against Damascus aimed at blocking the flow of money to the regime.
France announced it would host a meeting of the ‘Friends of Syria’ group in early July and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said President Assad was “a murderer of his people”. He added: “He must relinquish power. The sooner the better.”
The above measures are all well and good, and the least that could be done following the Houla massacre, but much more needs to be done. Unfortunately there are no easy answers, but I firmly believe Russia holds the key to a solution. Russia, a close ally of Syria, has so far refused to play a constructive role in this conflict and has consistently taken the side of President Assad and his bloody regime. This attitude is certainly not in Russia’s long-term interest as sooner or later the Assad regime will crumble and the Syrian opposition is unlikely to forget who Moscow supported during the conflict.
It is of utmost importance that the West continues to pile pressure on Russia to use its influence in Syria to convince Assad and his henchmen that their time is up. Obviously, Moscow would demand assurances that its security interests would be respected in the post-Assad era, something which should be given. The crucial thing is that the West convinces Russia that its regional interests are no longer served by Assad in power, following which an intense diplomatic effort could be launched to prepare the way for a peaceful transfer of power.
This will be a very difficult and complex process and must also involve a guarantee for the safety of Syria’s Alawite, Druze and Christian minorities, who are fearful of a Sunni Muslim takeover of the country. A negotiated transfer of power in Syria, although difficult to achieve (it was achieved in Yemen, even though problems clearly remain) is worth aiming for, and is preferable to the risks associated with military strikes. Russia should take a clear stand and live up to its international obligations.