THE INTRIGUES OF CROSSING THE REDLINE IN SYRIA

THE INTRIGUES OF CROSSING THE  REDLINE IN SYRIA

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized...... "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."... Barack Obama (20th August 2012)

Just over a year ago, the President of the United States was quoted as saying this in an interview. At that time, the Syrian scenario was evolving from that of a protest/uprising to a full scale civil war. After series of wrangling, debates, resolutions and counter resolutions at the UN security council, the Syrian crises was allowed to rage devoid of significant external inference from the Great Powers (US, UK, France, Russia and China).

The Syrian case is so peculiar to the world and the entire Middle East that it cannot be ignored, if not for any reason one surely stands out—Syria’s Chemical weapons. Estimated to be about the world’s fourth largest, Syria’s Chemical weapon arsenal hosts a contingent of deadly nerve agents such as Sarin, VX, Mustard gas and Tabun. Believed to be having been acquired in the 1980’s, Syria hosts this weaponry as a deterrent to Israel among other reasons.

The advent of the 20^th century changed the face of warfare in the globe forever! From the use of the general purpose machine gun (GPMG) which mows down an advancing infantry to the use of ballistics which can effectively engage non neighbouring countries in war; not to talk of the advancement in military avionics; in contemporary warfare parlance, warfare is now either conventional or non-conventional.

After the use of Chlorine gas by German forces during WW1, the world has witnessed a rapid advancement and deployment of weapons of mass destruction in terms of Nuclear, Thermonuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons—all termed nonconventional weapons. Though all weapons (conventional & nonconventional) are deadly, nonconventional weapons have a long term adverse effect on the planet and indeed could aid the genocide of sections of humanity or the human race as a whole! This fact has prompted the great powers (US,UK, Russia, France and China) to sign and ratify several treaties banning the use and spread of non conventional weapons.

On the question of Chemical weapons, drafted in 1992 and ratified by 65 countries, the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of Chemical weapons. Of 189 UN member states which are parties to this, Syria and six other UN member nations are not parties to the convention.

Apparently hosted as a deterrent to Israel’s superior conventional military and undeclared nonconventional weapons arsenal, Syria’s Chemical arsenal is scattered across the country and with the Syrian uprising turning to a full blown civil conflict, there were fears that Syria’s Chemical assets could fall into wrong hands or that the Syrian army could use them against opposition forces. In July 2012, the Syrian foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi stated that the Syrian armed forces would never use chemical weapons against domestic opposition, while remarking that these weapons remained available for use against "external aggression". However, ever since then, reports/ rumours of the use of Chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict began to filter in.

SOME INCIDENCES

*        In September 2012, there were reports that the Syrian military had restarted testing of chemical weapons at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo.

*        On 23^rd December 2012, Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs.

*        On 19 March 2013, new unconfirmed reports surfaced that SCUD missiles armed with chemical agents may have been fired into the Khan al-Asal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, with both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack.

Among several confirmed and unconfirmed incidences, the one that triggered international attention was an alleged Chemical weapons use during intense fighting between government forces and rebels at Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus on 21^st August 2013.

Amid the accusations of Chemical weapon usage, the Syrian government has reiterated that’s its arsenal was in safe hands. However, it’s baffling when the Syrian government accuse rebels of using chemical weapons. Does it mean the rebels have access/ capability to use these weapons? Who can be held responsible or credible in the face of these accusations and counter accusations?

When Barack Obama made the ‘RED LINE’ statement after several frustrations at the UN Security Council, he was seen by some as merely throwing tantrums! After all, past United States interventions save that of Kosovo has resulted in unstable states in the end- Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Libya are perfect examples. He certainly won’t want another US mess in Syria especially with Israel at risk.

However, the Syrian scenario presents a changing face. Or how else will one describe a mere solidarity protest turning a large scale civil war with world power disagreeing on how best to act? Whatever the sides or parties to the conflict, it is agreed by all that Chemical weapons are a no-no in warfare. In an unstable and uncertain country as Syria, the fear of its proliferation among armed groups whether pro-government or antigovernment gives a cause for concern.

SAFE GUARDING SYRIA’s CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND THE RED LINE

Regardless of the rumours and accusations, the use of Chemical Weapons by any of the parties to the Syrian conflict is condemnable and Obama maybe pleased to act now. However even if any external action may be seen as an R2P (responsibility to protect), the policy and intrigues of the conflict calls for caution. Likely moves across the RED LINE are:

• *        Limited and targeted airstrikes against Syrian Military installation to reduce the capability of the Syrian Military.
• *        A commando raid and seizure of all of Syria’s Chemical weaponry in addition to air strikes
• *        This might provide a window for an attack/strikes on radical jihadist Islamic groups too as they are not trusted by the west. This ploy may help to enhance and single out a distinct rebel force to counterbalance the government forces.
• *        Knocking off of Syria’s air defences and establishing a no fly zone.
• However, UN inspectors are already on the ground in Syria to establish evidences. It remains to be seen if the Western powers will wait for their results or resolution from the UN Security Council before acting.

Whatever form the REDLINE crossing might take if it ever does happens, care must be taken to sustain the Assad regime else further quandary to the conflict if Assad is taken out by any of these actions. Syria’s neighbours will definitely feel some fall out too.

Turkey and Jordan already host US military bases and Syrian refugees and both countries should expect more.

For Israel and Lebanon, their cases are delicately critical. Lebanon is already feeling the strain in terms of refugee pressure (at some point, it is estimated that both Palestinian and Syrian refugees on Lebanese soil will outnumber the Lebanese. With Hezbollah actively participating in the Syrian conflict, their activities might be targeted by US air strikes. Israel will bear the brunt of a likely retaliatory attack and this time with the conflict nearer home, unlike the 1991 gulf war where Israel was placated from retaliating to Iraqi scud missiles, there might be some form of activity from the Israelis—probably airstrikes on Lebanon and Syria. Hoping their intelligence do a good job. And as for Iraq, it will serve as a retreat for any further insurgent actions in Syria. I’m sure the US will not want to go after them there!

One must not forget the proxies staring at a distance—Iran! Might just do some threating and underground supplies to its fighting proxies.

In all, the REDLINE crossing if not properly prosecuted might set the stage for a wider conflict across the Middle East. Whether a bluff or not, the actors must think before crossing the REDLINE!

"Yes, it is true, the great powers can wage wars,……but can they win them?"---Bashar Al Assad (Syrian President)

THE ARAB SPRING: IMPLICATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

The public uprisings across the Middle East that greeted the dawn of the year 2011 came as a bewilderment to many. Ever since the middle ages, the Middle East-the home of the Arabs and the Spiritual home of the Islamic world has been ruled by several theocratic minded  governments and empires; in all, the reign of the Caliphs is still being referred to as the gloriest of all. The end of the First World War saw the demise of the Ottoman Empire and for the first time since the time of the Crusades, parts of the Arab world was ruled by Western Powers under the League of Nations Mandate. At first, the Arab world basked in the euphoria of freedom from Ottoman rule but later, Arab independence was sought.

Unlike the time of the Caliphs when the Arab world was under one government, this time the Arabs found themselves partitioned into several countries and at independence, Western powers (Great Britain and France) installed monarchical governments from the Hashemite clan to rule. Iraq had King Faisal 1, Jordan had King Abdullah, Egypt had King Fouad and Libya had King Farouk.

Apparently, these installed Monarchies were client regimes to the Allied powers and so a wave of Arab Nationalism arose shortly in the mid 20^th Century- The Baath party and Muslim brotherhood movement was born. The former party seized power through zealous Nationalist Military men and installed a wave of secular regimes across the Arab world.

These regimes were characteristically Sunni led except that of Syria and Iran which was Alawite and Shiite led. From the time of the Caliphs, the Arab world has been split along sectarian lines in terms of Islamic orthodoxy and this trend is a marked irreconcilable rift among the adherents to the Islamic faith; the Sunni and Shia sect being the most prominent among other miniature Islamic sects and subsects. At a time of Arab consciousness, the over 1000year rift once again came to prominence.

The Western powers preached democracy and were ready to take their crusade to heights in Africa especially at times of financial aid. However, when it came to the Middle

East, just like the USA’s power play in Central/Latin America in the 20th century, the West was basically interested installing client regimes-‘doesn’t matter whether democratic or autocratic’ provided the Jewish State was safe and their loyalty was ascertained.

For too long, several minority groups or indeed the Arab world in its entirety was held under repression. The Kurds, Berbers, Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni, Shiite, human rights et al; where held below freedom limits and thus a revolution was not farfetched! The USA and her allies despite fighting off Iraqi expansionist tendencies in the first gulf war and destroying significant Iraqi military machinery were involved in the first regime change in the Middle East all in the quest for ‘democracy among other motives’- the result, an unstable and ungovernable democratic Iraq!

Saddam Hussein's Statue at the centre of Baghdad being felled by Iraqi's after US troops entered the city in April 2003
Source: bbcnews.com

Like the fall of Saddam’s Statue in Baghdad, the Arab spring was greeted with cheers and thoughts of a prospective Utopia and Nationalistic bliss. Starting with the fall of the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali (who has always won previous elections by 98%) to Egypt’s Mubarak, the agony of the Arab Spring oozed with the military repressions in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. Yet, the unimaginable fall of the regime of the King of Kings of Africa and Imam of Muslims in Gaddafi’s Libya through Western help gave the impetus for a prolonged Syrian uprising that has seen Bashir Al-Assad sit tight despite having over 100,000 killed and just a little less than 2million displaced internally and externally as refugees.

Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi while they still held sway
Source:bbcnews.com

For Tunisia, it witnessed multiparty elections with a religious backed party forming the government; the apparatus of state being intact though expectations are still yet to be met.

The fall of Gaddafi did usher elections too, but with the apparatus of State in full collapse and the country awash with weapons, the Spring has brought nothing but an unsafe state truly governed by armed clans and gangs.

In Egypt, the Military did play a role in fall of the Mubarak regime and when elections finally came, the long repressed Muslim Brotherhood came to power. With expectations high, it’s been one protest after the other for and against government policies. Everybody now has a say and the exuberance was felt on the streets. The resultant- with just a year in power, the Muslim brotherhood led democratic government was brought down by protests albeit a Military coup.

Bodies of slain Egyptian protesters, most of them members of the Muslim Brotherhood
Source:bbcnews.com

The Egyptian Streets and squares have exhibited the democratic exuberance of all sides and parties in Egypt and for progress sake; the Military has stepped in a crackdown to clear the streets of protesters but not without a drop of blood!

The Egyptian Military clearing
Source:bbcnews.comthe Muslim Brother hood protesters in Cairo

It has been bloody in Yemen and Bahrain and Syria continues to shed more. What lessons do we have to learn?

      Revolutionary results as initially swift will not come easy and fast. Patience is the virtue.

      Religious parties have to redefine governance in a secular atmosphere, such that would accommodate minorities and respect the rights of everyone. Maybe Tunisia scored important points in this case.

      Care must be taken to ensure the preservance of the apparatus of state because revolution aftermaths are usually chaotic. Once again, thumbs up Tunisia!

      Revolutions should have a defined cause, devoid of significant external influence

 But the hardest lesson is that, by itself, people power is not enough. Translating popular protest and popular anger into real and lasting change is the real deal for any successful revolution.

Syria—What next for the revolution?

The Syrian conflict—an offshoot of the famous January 2011 Arab Spring which shook regimes in the Arab world has featured deadly twists and turns since it was caught in the winds of the Arab spring since March 2011.

Starting with mild solidarity protests in favour of the Arab Spring in other Arab nations, the protests metamorphosized into anti-government protests in major Syrian cities. Undecided on how to respond to the protesters, the Syrian government responded with counter protest actions by pro-government supporters and later quelling anti-government protest with outright use of force! The Syrian government forces began firing live rounds into anti-government protest groups! And that became the last straw that broke the camel’s back. The Syrian senario became that of an irreversible conflict senario. Defecting government troops and others ready to take up arms against the government formed the Free Syrian Army. The opposition made some political arrangements and at a point, it was recognized by the Western powers and most Arab countries as the legitimate government of Syria--- but do they really control the fighting wing, let alone the contiguous swathes of territory?

From pockets of skirmishes and uprisings, the Syrian conflict has grown to a full blown conflict or sectarian civil war leaving much of Syria in ruins. Over the last few months, Aleppo, Homs, Idlib, Hama, Idlib, et al, have had parts or almost all of their environs in ruins.

                                                   A devastated Khalidiya district in Homs

With the Syrian conflict taking a sectarian pattern featuring the majority Sunni Population against the minority ruling Alawi and the foreign implications to the conflict, it’s difficult to see an amicable end at sight.

An aerial view of the Khalidiya district of Homs (the Home of the Syrian revolution)

Much to the displeasure and disgust of the majority Sunni Arab neighbours, the Syrian government has received technical and manpower support from Iran and its proxy militia-Hezbollah. At the level of the United Nations, China and especially Russia have shown unwavering support for the Syrian regime of Bashir Al-Assad.

Whilst the Syrian conflict started amid the controversies that engulfed the Western involvement in Libya, the United States, Britain and France were very cautious in militarily supporting the opposition cause; inferring that military support from them will happen only when the Syrian government is seen to have used Chemical weapons against it people.

At the onset of the conflict with fatality figures still in its hundreds, it was thought that it would only be a matter of time before the Assad regime tows the line of Egypt’s Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali especially with defections of some high ranking government and military officials. Intriguingly, the government has withstood all odds and it appears there will be no letting down in the face of the armed opposition. In fact, it has blamed the armed uprising against it as the work of ‘foreign armed gangs’ and terrorists!. While this statement may be disputable at the onset of the conflict, it’s hard to decipher the allegiances of the armed Syrian opposition. Initially starting out as renegade soldiers and men with munitions; the armed Syrian opposition now comprises of foreign fighters prominent among them-Jihadist from the Al-Nusra front which does have links to Al Queda.

At the early stages of the Syrian conflict, with the Assad regime not buckling with rising armed insurrection, a strategic and tactical arming of the Syrian opposition would have most likely turned the tide. As the conflict wore on to a stalemate, a strategic boost in weaponry and manpower support from Iran and Hezbollah and then influx of Shiite fighters from the Iraqi insurgency has boosted government morale as seen in the takeover of the strategic town of Quasir. This victory for the government troops have spurred up action for military action against other rebel held towns/cities prominent among which is Aleppo and Homs.

On the side of the armed opposition it remains unclear if there’s any unity with the political opposition which seem in disarray especially with the resignation of top shots. Boosted by Sunni militias and Jihadist fighters of Al-Queda leanings from around the middle-east and even world wide, it remains unclear who will receive armed support from western backers if it does eventually comes

Although heavily funded by Sunni Arab led governments top of which is Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Opposition still needs strategic armaments especially significant air support if they will score a military victory  against Assad’s forces

On the part of the Western powers that have already recognized the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, they have had to reconsider their support in the face of the much detested Alqueda fighting mercenaries spurring up the armed opposition. The question they have to answer is who will they arm?

On the part of the government of Assad, they might claim some vindication now in their reference to the armed Syrian opposition as ‘armed gangs and terrorists’ from the onset of the conflict. And one thing remains clear! In the light of numerous fighting groups making up the Syrian opposition, if they do score military victory at last, the Syrian scenario won’t be different from what obtains in Iraq and Libya. Surely, it will be another recipe for the sectarian disintegration of Syria. On the other hand, after much detest against the Assad regime with so much blood spilled, would it be time for the Western Sunni powers to concede to Assad? After all, his government has stood firm and can only apparently reunite the country’s minority and majority groups sparing sectarian division..

Whilst the Western powers are trying to identify who to arm amongst the Syrian armed opposition, and the Russians, Iranians and Chinese staunchly unwavering in their support for Assad; wouldn’t it be time to consider the outcome of any endgame to the conflict?

Does the world need another addition to perennial disintegrated sectarian states especially in the Middle East awash with weapons? Or a peaceful state.. Whether autocratic or democratic provided there’s no bloodshed on a massive scale?

The answer to this begs the question. Let all players to the conflict ponder on their conscience!