This is a great inspiring article. I am pretty much pleased with your good work. You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.iUniverse
[This is my most recent piece for Asia Times. It can be reposted if AT is credited and a link is included to the AT site.]
The question
before the People's Republic of China (PRC)
leadership is how badly it misplayed its hand on
Syria. Or did it? Certainly, the solution
advocated by Russia and China - a coordinated
international initiative to sideline the
insurrection in favor of a negotiated political
settlement between the Assad regime and its
domestic opponents - is a bloody shambles.
As articulated in the Annan plan, it might
have been a workable, even desirable option for
the Syrian people as well as the Assad regime.
But Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey were
determined not to let it happen. And the United
States, in another case of the Middle Eastern tail
wagging the American dog, has downsized its [Image]dreams of
liberal-democratic revolution for the reality of
regime collapse driven in significant part by
domestic thugs and opportunists, money and arms
funneled in by conservative Gulf regimes, violent
Islamist adventurism, and neo-Ottoman overreach by
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.
But
a funny thing happened last week. The Assad regime
didn't collapse, despite an orchestrated,
nation-wide assault (coordinated, we can assume,
by the crack strategists of the international
anti-Assad coalition): a decapitating terrorist
bombing in the national security directorate,
near-simultaneous armed uprisings in the main
regime strongholds of Damascus and Aleppo, and the
seizure of many of Syria's official border
crossings with Iraq and Turkey.
The border
adventures revealed some holes in the insurgents'
game, as far as showing their ability to operate
independently outside of their strongholds to hold
territory, and in the vital area of image
management.
Juan Cole of the University of
Michigan laid out the big picture strategic
thinking behind some of the border seizures on his
blog, Informed Comment:
If the FSA can take the third
crossing from Iraq, at Walid, they can control
truck traffic into Syria from Iraq, starving the
regime. The border is long and porous, but big
trucks need metalled roads, which are few and go
through the checkpoints. Some 70% of goods
coming into Syria were coming from Iraq, because
Europe cut off trade with the Baath regime of
Bashar al-Assad. The rebels are increasingly in
a position to block that trade or direct it to
their strongholds. [1]
According to an
Iraqi deputy minister of the interior, the units
that seized the border were perhaps not the
goodwill ambassadors that the Syrian opposition or
Dr Cole might have hoped for:
The top official said Iraqi border
guards had witnessed the Free Syrian Army take
control of a border outpost, detain a Syrian
army lieutenant colonel, and then cut off his
arms and legs.
"Then they executed 22
Syrian soldiers in front of the eyes of Iraqi
soldiers." [2]
They reportedly also
raised the al-Qaeda flag.
The forces
participating in the operation at the Turkish
border crossings were also an interesting bunch -
and certainly not all local Syrian insurgents, as
AFP reported:
By Saturday evening, a group of some
150 foreign fighters describing themselves as
Islamists had taken control of the post.
These fighters were not at the site on
Friday, when rebel fighters captured the post.
Some of the fighters said they belonged
to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), while
others claimed allegiance to the Shura Taliban.
They were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles,
rocket launchers and improvised mines.
The fighters identified themselves as
coming from a number of countries: Algeria,
France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the
United Arab Emirates - and the Russian republic
of Chechnya… [3]
The operation also
had a distinct whiff of Taliban-at-the-Khyber-Pass
about it, as the fighters looted and, in some
cases, torched more than two dozen Turkish trucks,
to the embarrassment of the Erdogan government.
Aside from occupation of frontier posts by
the kind of hardened foreign Islamist fighters
that, before Bashar al-Assad's removal became a
pressing priority, served as the West's ultimate
symbol of terrorism run amok, things have gotten
quite lively at the Syria/Turkish border.
It is alleged that, in order to fill the
vacuum left by the departure of Syrian border
forces to fight the insurgents in the heartland,
the Syrian regime has turned over local security
to Syrian Kurdish political groups, and Kurdish
flags are flying all over Syria's northeast.
Not to be left out of the rumpus, the
president of the virtually-independent region of
Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, announced that
Syrian Kurd army deserters sheltering in northern
Iraq have been organized into an expeditionary
force that will, at the proper time, return home
to keep order in the Kurdish areas of Syria.
Presumably the strongly pro-American Iraqi
Kurds under Barzani can easily be induced to
inflict mischief on Assad, but at the same time
they will feel little incentive to minimize the
Kurdish nationalist headache Erdogan has created
for himself on Turkey's southeastern border. [4]
Now that the democratic opposition, the
overseas agitators of the Syrian National
Congress, and the insurrectionists of the Free
Syrian Army have all taken their shot at the Assad
regime and failed, at least for the time being,
attention is once again turning to "the Yemen
solution", a k.a. regime restructuring featuring
the symbolic removal of an embattled strongman,
lip service toward democratic reform, and the
continuation of business as usual under a selected
junta of more palatable regime strongmen.
Or, as the Syrian National Council put it
on July 24:
"We would agree to the departure of
Assad and the transfer of his powers to a regime
figure, who would lead a transitional period
like what happened in Yemen," SNC spokesman
Georges Sabra told AFP. [5]
The SNC's
statement found a prompt echo from US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, according to Xinhua:
US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton on Tuesday urged Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad to plan a political transition in his
violence-plagued country. "We do believe that it
is not too late for the al-Assad regime to
commence with planning for a transition, to find
a way that ends the violence by beginning the
kind of serious discussions that have not
occurred to date," Clinton told reporters …
[6]
It is perhaps unnecessary to
mention that for the last few months the groups
steadfastly opposed to any "serious discussions"
have been the anti-Assad coalition and the SNC,
while Assad, backed by Russia and China, has been
gamely attempting to cobble together a loyal
opposition with sufficient heft to credibly
discuss political reform.
But all of a
sudden, it seems not everyone is singing from the
same hymnal:
Earlier Tuesday, some Western media
reported that SNC spokesman George Sabra said
the main opposition group was willing to accept
a transition led temporarily by a member of the
current government if President Bashar al-Assad
agrees to step down.
"This is an utter
lie. Neither Mr. Sabra nor Ms. Kodmani has made
these statements," SNC European foreign
relations coordinator Monzer Makhous told
Russia's Interfax news agency, referring to
Bassma Kodmani, the SNC's head of foreign
relations.
Makhous said the opposition
would not agree to accept talks with the Assad
government as "no persons associated with
murders of the Syrian people could participate
in the talks." [7]
It remains to be
seen how the AFP or Secretary Clinton - or, for
that matter, the unhappy spokesman Georges Sabra -
respond to this rebuke.
One catches hints
of a possible disconnect between Gulf-state
intransigence (which has driven the "Assad must
go" rhetoric of the last year and a half") and US
and EU dreams of a quick, face-saving resolution
along the lines of Yemen.
A "Yemen
solution" would probably also be acceptable to
Russia and China. Instead of Syria becoming a
pro-Western/Sunni dagger aimed at the heart of
Shi'ite Iraq and Iran, it would instead become a
dysfunctional, expensive, and bloody liability for
the West and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
In other words, just like Yemen.
There are, however, problems with the
Yemen precedent for Syria that go beyond the
unwillingness of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to settle
for anything less than a triumphal march into a
conquered Damascus.
The key event in the
"Yemen solution" was President Saleh getting blown
up in his palace mosque. Although he wasn't
killed, he was injured badly enough that he was
removed from the scene for several months as he
underwent medical treatment, allowing a new crew
in the presidential palace to undertake the
transition.
The anti-Assad coalition had
worse luck with the bomb in Damascus; Assad was
not present at the meeting, he is still the face
of the Syrian regime, and his inconvenient
presence makes it more difficult for the
international community to claim victory in
principle while allowing the regime to survive in
practice.
There's another problem with the
Yemen solution; although there are continued news
reports, leaks, and analyses - and, most recently,
a proposal by the Arab League - ballyhooing the
idea that Assad can receive immunity from
prosecution for crimes against humanity under the
International Criminal Court if he agrees to leg
it to Russia, there is no way for the coalition to
provide a convincing guarantee to him, let alone
his family and associates under the current state
of affairs.
The fact is, the entire
purpose of the Treaty of Rome, which set up the
International Criminal Court, was to prevent this
sort of sordid deal-cutting.
In practice
the ICC is something of an unhappy mutant. Its
fundamental premise of "universal jurisdiction" -
the idea that bad guys could be prosecuted in the
courts of any member country - was undermined by
the United States and other countries not to keen
to see their political and military supremos
vulnerable to prosecution in some remote
do-goodery or hostile jurisdiction.
The
result was an unwieldy two-tier system. Those
states with a masochistic desire to permit other
nations to interfere in their criminal affairs
ratified the treaty, becoming "states parties".
Within this exclusive club, universal jurisdiction
reigns.
States that merely signed the
treaty - "non states parties" - are not subject to
universal jurisdiction. Their miscreants can only
be brought to justice by the consent of their own
governments or if the UN Security Council decided
that the overriding demands of international
security merited the opening of a prosecution.
This was still not enough for the United
States, which took the ungraceful step of
"unsigning" the Treaty of Rome.
Yemen had
placed itself in the exalted company of the United
States by also "unsigning" the treaty in 2007, so
a successor regime has no immediate recourse to
the ICC and ex-president Saleh's fate is in the
sympathetic hands of the United States and the
rest of the UN Security Council.
Just to
be safe, the Yemeni transitional government went
the extra mile of granting irrevocable immunity
(binding on future, perhaps less friendly
governments) to Saleh and his aides.
Ironically (or predictably) the Yemen
solution has short-changed the law-and-democracy
friendly opposition we supposedly cared so much
about, in favor of placing a new, tractable regime
(best described as the old regime sans Saleh) in
power.
This does not sit well with
Tawakkul Karman, a co-winner of the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2011for her brave pro-democracy and
women's-rights activism in Yemen. She has been
fruitlessly calling on the UNSC to direct the ICC
to open a prosecution of[Image] Saleh. After a visit to
The Hague, she met with a reporter from AFP:
Because Yemen has not signed the
court's founding treaty, the Rome Statute, the
only way the prosecutor could launch an
investigation is if the United Nations Security
Council tells him to.
"This is unfair,"
Karman said on the steps of the court's
headquarters. "They have to find a new way to
bring everyone who is killing his people to
here, to this building." [8]
However,
in the matter of ICC jurisdiction, Syria
recapitulates Libya and C๔te d'Ivoire, not Yemen.
Libya had signed but not ratified the
treaty; so it took a UN Security Council
resolution to place Muammar Gaddafi and his family
and associates within the jurisdiction of the ICC
while they were still in power.
Syria is
in the same boat - a signer but not a ratifier.
With the current regime in place, it would indeed
take a UN Security Council resolution to get Assad
and his associates on the hook for war crimes
under an ICC prosecution, and that simply isn't
going to happen.
However, if Assad were to
leave power, a successor regime in Syria can issue
a declaration submitting itself to ICC
jurisdiction retroactively, in order to cover
crimes against humanity committed by prior leaders
back to the date of the court's establishment in
2002.
That, indeed, is what happened in
C๔te d'Ivoire, when the current government has
turned over the former president, Laurent Gbagbo,
to the ICC for prosecution for crimes against
humanity allegedly committed while he tried to
cling to power following a lost election in 2010.
[9]
Given the intense rancor surrounding
the bloody crackdown in Syria and the crimes
against humanity that were undoubtedly committed,
it would appear extremely difficult for the
international coalition to offer a convincing
assurance that a victorious opposition (which, in
addition to rebels bought and paid for by Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, also includes a large number of
principled and righteously and rightfully incensed
Syrians) would not, as its first order of
business, call on the ICC to prosecute quite a few
leaders of the previous regime for crimes against
humanity.
This was a point made by Navi
Pillay, head of the UN Human Rights Commission.
Reportage at the time characterized Pillay as
gratuitously adding complications that would make
it harder to cut a deal with Assad, but she was
simply making a statement of fact.
So the
offer to allow Assad to go into exile with a
promise of immunity is unlikely to sway him, his
backers in Russia and China, or the military and
security officers nervously regarding the red
harvest of judicial and extra-judicial revenge
that would follow any regime overthrow.
With the Syrian regime proving resistant
to a quick collapse, and anti-Assad sentiment
within the regime stifled by fear of victor's
justice, what's Plan B?
It seems to be
Send in the Clowns.
In other words, find
an ex-regime figurehead who is at least
superficially palatable to the Syrian populace and
sufficiently obedient to the foreign coalition,
and can also persuade the Assad regime that his
first act will be to push a bill through the
(presumably unrepresentative, hand-picked, and
tractable) transitional legislature granting a
graceful exit to Assad and amnesty to his
associates (aside from some carefully-chosen
scapegoats) from prosecution for their past crimes
in the name of reconciliation.
(It should
be noted in passing that the ICC is not supposed
to recognize this kind of legislated impunity and
the victims of Assad and the Ba'ath regime would
still have the right to apply to the ICC
prosecutor to open a case, but presumably this can
be finessed.) [10]
The initial candidate
for the exalted role of transition leader is
Brigadier General Manaf Tlass, who fled Syria amid
widespread huzzahs a few weeks ago.
Tlass
has been literally grooming himself for his role
as popular leader for months, growing out his
military haircut into a heroic Byronic mane prior
to his defection.
His photographic prop is
a big cigar, presumably to reinforce the image of
manly leadership, and he issued a post-defection
statement describing how his patriotic qualms
concerning the Assad regime's brutal
counter-insurgency operations had led to his
sidelining from the military chain of command (and
fortuitously exonerating him from implication in
the worst excesses of regime forces).
He
is also, apparently, France's great hope for clout
in Syria, as this priceless excerpt from the
Christian Science Monitor reveals:
Now, Mustafa [his father] and
Tlass's sister, Nahed Ojjeh, are living in
Paris, where Ms. Ojjeh is a prominent socialite
who once dated a former French foreign minister.
"France has a longstanding relationship
with the Tlass family, going back to the 1980s.
Manaf's sister … throws lavish dinner parties
and infiltrated the French political and media
elites," says Mr. Bitar. "When she became the
mistress of a foreign minister, there was a
national security risk for France, but the
president then chose to turn a blind eye because
he felt there was need for backchannel diplomacy
between France and the Assad regime.
"Given these old ties, France today
might be thinking of grooming Manaf Tlass and
counting on him to play an important role in the
post-Assad transition phase."
[11]
Manaf Tlass is the foppish scion
of a family of mysteriously wealthy and allegedly
fornicating emigres and, by Syrian army standards,
also a lightweight, owing his rank to his father,
who once served as Assad's Minister of Defense.
Despite that, he is emerging as Saudi Arabia's
favored candidate as figurehead for the new Syria.
Perhaps this is because Tlass, with his embrace of
non-Islamist financial and moral values, would
present a reassuring secularist face to the West
while at the same time serving as a compliant
accessory to Gulf interests.
However,
Qatar appears comfortable with another high-level
defector, one who also happens to be Sunni (as is
Tlass), but was an important cog in the Assad
machine and has hands-on experience with the nitty
gritty of restoring order in a violent and
dangerous set of circumstances.
The man is
Nawaff al-Faris, formerly Syria's ambassador to
Iraq. According to an interlocutor communicating
with the As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab blog,
Ambassador Nawaff is quite a piece of work, having
earned his bones with the Ba'ath regime as
battalion commander during the legendary Hama
massacre of 1982, the action that routed the
Muslim Brotherhood from Syria at the cost of
around 20,000 lives in that one city:
"I know about this man, nawaf
al-faris, the defecting ambassador of syria to
iraq, from the ... the hama area. Hama people
remember him well. He was commanding one of the
battallions that committed atrocities there in
1982, and i heard it from hama and halab older
people (now dead) that he personally threw 16
young boys youngest was 6, from the the rooftop
of a building before their parents' eyes.
…he was very close to the regime, as
much as the tlass clan, except that he commands
a larger following among bedouins in the
euphrates area…his flight through qatar, rather
than turkey, means that the qataris have big
plans for him in post-assad syria. you will hear
his name again. a very very dirty and cruel
man." [12]
Nawaff might be a good
choice in the eyes of Qatar, but installing one of
the butchers of Hama would presumably not be the
kind of Arab Spring triumph that the West is
looking for in Syria. So perhaps the search will
continue for a more suitable candidate, while
hoping that the remorseless grind of violence,
sanctions, and anger will finally crack the power
of the Assad regime.
However, when we talk
about "events spinning out of control in Syria" we
can also take it as a reference to the
international game plan for Syria. Indirectly
enabling regime collapse through a disorderly
collection of guerillas is no substitute for
sending in a big, shiny army to occupy the capital
and dictate events.
The longer regime
collapse is delayed, the greater the risk that
important elements of the insurrection might slip
the leash, start fighting with each other as well
as against Assad, and contribute to the creation
of a failed state where Syria used to be.
Therefore, even as international support
for the insurgency escalates, the anti-Assad
coalition finds it particularly frustrating that
China and Russia have refused to vote for
escalated UN Security Council sanctions that,
under the pretext of supporting the moribund Annan
peace initiative, might expedite the collapse of
the Syrian regime.
For all the principled
talk by Russia and China concerning
non-interference and the right of the people of
Syria to control their destiny, it is difficult to
escape the inference that they are not
particularly unhappy with the current turn of
events.
After the West rounded on China
and Russia for vetoing another round of sanctions
against Syria, Beijing shrugged off the criticism.
People's Daily approvingly reproduced a
Global Times editorial that stated:
China also opposes the UN Security
Council openly picking sides in Syria's internal
conflict. It insists that the Syrians should
seek a political solution through their own
negotiations.
This is a bottom line that
must be upheld so as to prevent the West from
overthrowing any regime at will. [13]
Bashar al-Assad is doing a pretty
good job of staying in power and crushing the
insurrection. The longer he is able to cling to
power, the more shattered and divided Syria
becomes - and the less useful it is to the West
and the Gulf states as a proxy warrior in the
battle with Shi'ite Iraq and Iran.
"Syrian wheel of fortune spins China's way"
5 Comments -
This is a great inspiring article. I am pretty much pleased with your good work. You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.iUniverse
1:02 AM
This is an impressive editorial thanks for sharing this information.
masters dissertation paper
11:14 PM
I run a company that operates Gardening Company Derby and this blog has been very helpful. Thanks
6:10 AM
I run a company that operates Gardening Services Derby and this blog has been very helpful. Thanks
6:10 AM
I run a company that operates Landscape Gardeners Derby and this blog has been very helpful. Our Burton On Trent Gardeners agree that they are very good and easy to use! We also have Lawn Mowers Derby Thanks
2:03 AM