Dialogue With Commonsense And Reality Urgently Needed In Syria

The Writer

It is widely acknowledged that even in the jungle where common sense is not common to common creatures, there is always a way of getting order maintained. There can thus be no reason or excuse whatsoever why for more than four years of devastating chaotic situations in Syria, international community is still struggling to find anything close to order in that country which used to be one of the prospering nations in the middle east.

Before the outbreak of the ‘non-peaceful’ protest which metamorphosed into a full-blown ‘armed rebellion’ against the existing establishment and President Assad’s regime in 2011, a major challenge facing Syria was some kind of entrenched dictatorship and lack of deep democratic governance. It was, therefore, in the right direction of those Syrians who were calling for democratic reforms much so in order that they would consolidate the socio-economic and political gains the country had made over the years.

In light of socioeconomic development which President Bashar al-Assad was advancing and political reforms he was engineering as against his predecessors, this particular challenge of low level democratic credentials could have been described as a less severe challenge. This may not have required such a drastic response portrayed by the riotous demonstrators who appeared to have been emboldened by solidarity messages and postures from far and near, some of whom were even more undemocratic and autocratic. Most of the countries in the Arab league/middle east not an exception.

The principal reason behind international solidarity for the protesters against the Assad’s regime was the urge to allow the people of Syria to freely exercise their democratic right of free expression and association as protected by international law and over two thirds of all municipal constitutions and legislations. For many of international power players who normally form the international community, however, this principal reason was just meretricious. It was simply a camouflage and an escape route to galvanize efforts to get their national and parochial interests protected and or advanced.

Apparently but ironically, Syria soon became a playground for interest maneuvering at the huge expense of Syrian lives that were pretentiously being defended. Arms were surprisingly delivered to a group of people that called themselves Free Syrian Army (FSA) and such other opposition elements but whose leadership and range of association was unpredictable, opaque and suspicious. In the process, Syrian Army and other security forces were overwhelmed by FSA and other splinter, dispersed opposition groups who seized towns, villages and cities while severely terrorizing thousands of civilians with weapons they had seized and those they got from their so-called friends who may not have had their interest deep at heart.

Assad and his Army were now made to look for cover under desperation and thus moved tanks and heavy weaponry to city centers, shelled town, cities and villages and murdered thousands of civilians. That was all too wrong. Both government and opposition elements committed serious atrocities against humanity in the process of pandering to their selfish desires and that of their international masters.

Central authority became a miniature controlling only few areas of the country while leaving strategic cities and towns especially close to the borders of its neighbors in the hands of array of amateur and professional fighters who grouped themselves into different independent sectarian associations fighting for all kinds of purposes including religious, political/power and economic. The coincidence of failure to effectively handle the Syrian lawlessness and Iraqi’s instability created a free zone between Iraq and Syria which resulted in the lawless groups fighting for religious, economic and political reasons to converge their common interest in forming the Islamic State group (ISIS).

The way some elements of the international community were able to dramatically identify some of the groups as ‘legitimate and moderate’ while labeling others as hardliners and terrorists would definitely amaze any bystander that struggles to gain a refugee status in any of the countries sharing borders with Syria or even those beyond. Whatever method and processes they used to identify these groups as ‘moderate and legitimate’ are, to my mind, a suspect. It is not cast and stone. It is not about the labels but more to do with what atrocities all of these groups commit, although the disastrous operations of ISIS is all too outstanding. Delivering weapons and fighting aids to such people who hardly have a clear line of authority was and still is a miscalculation amongst those who may have really meant well for the stability and peace of Syria, other than their own parochial ends.

The fact is that some of these opposition elements sometimes fight themselves instead of uniting to oust Assad. But apart from the pro-government or pro-Assad fighters who also emerged to support sustainability of the regime, there is hardly a borderline between these opposition elements. For instance, Free Syrian Army member today could easily become an ISIS member tomorrow or even later today. Al-Nusra front member today could easily become an FSA member anytime. Weapons and loyalties may well be freely crossing over from one opposition group to the other.

The crisscrossing of weapons and membership or loyalty amongst these opposition elements send clear signal to how wrong international community has been handling the crisis in Syria. The staunch stance taken by some western leaders and their allies led by USA government asking Assad to completely step aside and allow the disorganized opposition elements to take over the governing affairs of Syria may have added salt to injury.

Here was a man in Assad who knew the disaster that would befall him if he dared resigned and placed his personal fortunes in a lawless situation that had been created. To his mind, I suspect, Assad would have preferred fighting to death instead of resigning as would have easily been done in a free democratic society in the developed world where rule of law is allowed to prevail. The threat to intervene or use force against Assad if he did not step aside, under the circumstance especially when he knew he still had some lingering support from world powers like Russia and perhaps China, was therefore ill-conceived.

In fact, everyone knew and still knows the outstanding havoc that has been brought onto Libyans after North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other international powers, in cahoots with reckless domestic elements, helped to murder Muammar Gaddafi and destroying the whole central governance apparatus of the Libyan State which is now a failed State, never thought of even under the autocratic and maybe brutal regime of Gaddafi.

Therefore, because of this wrong approach and disposition in the midst of increasing complications, an attempt by United States of America (USA), Arab league, Russia and other international interest groups to sponsor peace in Syria failed without waiting. Not even United Nations (UN) special visitations, resolutions and envoys could help return peace to Syria, conscious of the huge pretense that shrouded the sponsors of these resolutions, envoys and peace talks.

The great Mr. Kofi Annan’s failure, resignation and damning departing statement as joint UN and Arab League special envoy in this regard could sum it better. Annan particularly goes as frustratingly saying; "[as] an envoy, I can't want peace more than the protagonists, more than the Security Council or the international community, for that matter”. Thus, none of the parties was interested in his six-point peace plan other than fostering their parochial interests. His successor, renowned Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, followed suit because the status quo which hampered efforts of Kofi Annan was persistent and perhaps even became more established.

When appeared to get out of control as some of the opposition elements under ISIS was said to pose a threat to USA national and global interests, USA government and her allies then launched air attacks on ISIS in September 2014 and over a year on, ISIS was still kidnapping and beheading innocent people, expanding membership and territories, and posing a threat to global peace and security. At the same time, Assad’s regime appeared to be crumbling at one point and stabilizing at another point. Assad was probably just happy maintaining the small relevant territory he had under his control other than losing it all.

While Russia was seriously battling with Ukraine/Crimea situation and western sanctions that came along, she may have been quite curiously and attentively watching events unfold in Syria. The daring reality was that the weapons Russia was supplying to Assad hardly changed the game because they were carefully and reluctantly supplied and or that there was inadequate manpower and infrastructure in Assad’s Syria to utilize the weapons supplied or intended to be supplied. Assad’s regime was apparently bleeding to the end while USA and her allies were apparently protecting and advancing their interest therein, of course, to the clear detriment of the existence of centrally established and recognized system. Admittedly and admirably, the USA intervention helped to rescue the Yazidis in Iraq and of course slowed down ISIS expansion into Iraq with thousands of militants killed, according to USA - but not towards Assad.

With idling weapons and military airpower searching for grounds to demonstrate, test and activate, President Vladimir Putin of Russia at a point felt that he could not continue to sit by with all of his power while allowing his ally, Assad, to be surreptitiously and openly ousted by international actors under the cover of international diplomacy and fighting against ISIS. Mr. Putin then mobilized his forces and entered the fray with vigor in September 2015, regardless of the consequences. As usual, Putin also pretended like USA and its allies that his airstrikes were only to disable ISIS and other terrorist groups.

However, even though Putin stepped in to help Assad to regain stability and recapture lost territories, his forces after few months of operations have been said to significantly incur a serious blow on ISIS in Syria as they run more for safe haven than before. At the same time, Assad’s forces have been able to recapture strategic towns including Aleppo due to Russia’s airstrikes against some of the forces regarded by USA as legitimate and moderate opposition groups – which apparently are not recognized as such by Russia. Russia’s presence in Syria is a game changer and has indeed changed the game of recapturing territories, of course for Assad.

Realizing the increasing gains and stability of Assad’s regime and the collision course USA was likely heading with Russia, which would be severely disastrous, the peace processes that had been somewhat dormant after the exit of Annan and Brahimi were enigmatically but naturally ignited resulting in the ongoing peace talks at Munich in Germany.

Quite clearly, US State Secretary, John Kerry and his counterparts have been able to pull strings and sober moves to galvanize mutual understanding which have led to the agreement by participating groups including Russia and warring factions in Syria to the cessation of hostilities in a week from 12^th February 2016. This move is certainly good news to anyone that has care and sympathy for thousands (at least 250, 0000) human lives that have been wasted and millions of suffering refugees, internally displaced or locked up civilians in Syria. However, to all intent and purposes, every independent observer would appreciate that the fact that even cease fire could not be used in the Munich agreement means a lot about how long Syria may be to stability. It is also good news that BBC reported on Sunday 14^th February 2016 that Mr. Putin and President Barack Obama of USA have had a useful and encouraging telephone conversation in order to work together for peace in Syria.

The fact is that despite diplomatic chess played between USA and Russia in the midst of these complex dynamics, Russia would not want to see anything that would make it impossible for her to complete its business of eliminating all threats to the existence of Assad’s regime. Russia also says she is defending her national interest because some of the fighters are Russians and would return to Russia to inflict terror on her citizens. On the other hand, USA and her allies would want Assad to step down even though they may now feel it is a distant reality. However, it would be difficult to ask USA and her allies to stop supporting the course of the so-called ‘moderate and legitimate’ opposition elements such as FSA.

Meanwhile both Assad’s regime and all opposition elements have committed horrendous acts, which would have been unpardonable. USA and her allies as well as Russia have equally caused the lost of many civilian lives during their air campaigns. The situation presents a nauseating competition between ideal situation, illegalities and disorderliness. There has to be a middle line under the interwoven circumstances.

That is the more reason why common sense approach along international legal perimeters must be made to prevail, henceforth. I am not sure of what really has been put forward by parties at the peace talks in Munich. I would however want to posit that one clear pathway to common understanding is the resolve to ensure that Russia and USA together with her allies get the following done concurrently, without fail:

Russia should immediately cease her airstrikes and prevail over Assad and his government to also end the hostilities as agreed in Munich. Any of pro-government forces that refuse to comply or to be prevailed upon by Assad or Russia should be regarded as enemies, targeted collectively and eliminated. At the same time, Russia and Assad should be made to recognize the ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition groups as viable partners to a peaceful and stable Syria while leaving no stone unturned to eliminate the visibly violent opposition groups as mutually identified by all legitimate partners in the game.

In the same vein, USA and her allies should immediately stop its airstrikes and operations to weaken Assad’s regime while prevailing over the ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition groups to end all hostilities against Assad regime and its allies as well as making these groups recognize Assad as the only democratically elected and legitimate President of Syria. Any of such groups that cannot be prevailed upon by USA through peaceful means has to be destroyed by collective forces of both USA and Russia.

If these feats are achieved, the opposition groups should be disbanded, the leaders of which made to play key roles in a new government that would be led by Assad until his 7 year tenure ends. The opposition elements may have the fear of being witch hunted, arbitrarily imprisoned or ostracized. These fears are legitimate and must be made to be part of the assurances Assad will give in a peace pact.

Assad may also harbor the fear that these ‘legitimate and moderate’ opposition elements may make his government ungovernable as they may not agree on governance processes. Although it is all about consensus building, these concerns should also be upon which assurances the opposition elements must give in the peace pact. Assad may also harbor the fundamental fear that if he steps aside after his legitimate tenure ends, he may be witch hunted by any opposition element that may succeed him. Guarantees should be given on this too so that Assad would feel safer and willing to exit the governance scene after his legitimate tenure expires.

These are democratic sacrifices that ought to be made regardless of the inconveniences and moral issues that could be raised. Crucifying some democratic tenets or principles for a greater good is far better than maintaining or protecting such principles for a worse consequence when there may be none or only few left to bear any testimony, I dare say.

All the warring factions must be made to understand quite clearly that anyone who breaches the tenets of the peace pact that would be signed shall be vehemently attacked by the combined forces of Russia, USA and her allies as well as concerned global forces. United Nations should see to the fullest implementation of the peace pact and processes. Look, Assad and other warring factions excluding those outside the ‘somewhat in control’ of USA and her allies will respond swiftly if they see that USA and Russia are really committed to implementing decisions reached by all of them. However, if these warring factions feel that Russia and USA and other Western powers are using Syria as a staging post for another cold war or a possible world war, they definitely would not take them very seriously.

A clear message to Russia and the Western countries and their allies led by USA is that, it is neither in their interest nor in the interest of Syrians and the rest of the world to create any possibility that rehearses its way towards a cold war or a third world war. Immediately however, the humanitarian and refugee crises caused by the Syrian conflict are terrible eyesores urgently seeking for urgent remedies. While working assiduously to end the conflict through genuine overtures, the world leaders should please work around the clock to protect the fundamental human rights of millions of refugees presented rightly by NATO’s Secretary General on BBC radio of 13^th February 2016 as the ‘biggest crises of refugees in Europe since the second world war’.

Ultimately, the concern should not be about who is right or otherwise. What is most important under the prevailing circumstances must have everything to do with right things to do, going forward. Mutual and collective sacrifices, commitments, genuineness and open-mindedness must form the fortress on which the forward march efforts will be harnessed. Otherwise, the Munich Peace talks may eventually end up to be a talk-shop that wasted every body’s precious time.

Adam Abukari
International Legal Specialist
[email protected]
15^th February 2016