Author : Colonel SC Tyagi (Retd),

STORM IN DESERT (SYRIA): INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

By Colonel SC Tyagi (Retd)*

A slow and steady storm is rising in the Middle East and after the fall of single party rulers in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the ‘Arab Spring’ fever has caught up with Syria. Its arrival has put question marks on the survival of the Bashar al-Assad’s regime who in turn had inherited it from his father, Hafez al-Assad, in 2000. As a 33 years young leader then, he adopted the “old versus new guard” theme to cultivate his image as a reformer and bolster his legitimacy at home and abroad. For a brief period, he allowed dissidents to have their way and criticize corruption openly. But this so-called ‘Damascus Spring’ ended in August 2001 with the arrest and imprisonment of ten leading activists who had called for democratic elections and a campaign of civil disobedience. As a result, Syrian government was then dubbed as "authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish".[1] There have been several calls for democratic reforms thereafter.

Adding to the simmering discontent, in the past decade, the socio-economic conditions of the people have not changed much and Syria has not seen a single meaningful act of reform[2]. Unemployment has increased in recent years. The standard of living has further deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance.[3] It has an annual growth rate of only four per cent with stagnating wages, poverty and unemployment hovering at 20 per cent as against government claims of mere eight per cent.

Bashar al-Assad, though an Alawite minority ruler himself, has been successful in keeping the army integrated with his governance. This success is partly due to keeping some of the important posts with Alawite officers. However, some of his kith and kin, who opposed his autocratic functioning and wanted to restore democracy in Syria, have been forced to leave the country. It may also be noted that Syria is Baharin in reverse – a Sunni majority that feels oppressed by a relatively small Alawite sect that many believe is closer to the Shiites.[4] There have also been occasional clashes between Kurdish protesters and security forces in the past. It all indicated completion of a perfect recipe for mass uprising against the government. 

The current fuse was lit up when 15 children were detained for spraying anti-regime graffiti on walls in southern city of Deraa in March 2011. Protesters were fired upon by the security forces resulting in a few deaths. The next day thousands of protesters took to the streets torching the ruling Baath Party headquarters, several other government buildings, and the local branch of the country’s main cell phone company, Syriatel, which is owned by Assad’s cousin, Rami Makhlouf, whom the protesters singled out by name, calling him a “thief.” They also defaced many of the ubiquitous posters of Assad that the regime, Soviet-style, hung in public places, and tore down a statue of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father[5].

Many analysts believed in the regime staying on the course and remain sheltered from the regional turmoil. Armed civilians firing both at the Police and the protesters have also been often cited thus questioning the authenticity of the protest movement and claiming it to be a fabrication of a pretext for a humanitarian intervention by the West. However, one year old revolt in Syria has become increasingly bloody - some 7,500, mostly civilians, have been killed.  Calls for outside action have raised the possibility of military intervention.

Earlier, France had made a case for deploying military forces to create a “humanitarian corridor” for importing food, medicine, and aid into Syria. UN Human Rights Council had accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime of crimes against humanity and is of the opinion that international community needs to take urgent and effective measures to protect the Syrian people. Turkey, meanwhile, has been threatening to impose a “buffer zone” inside the country since mid-June 2011, when it became the centre for 10,000 Syrian refugees fleeing the massacre under way in their country’s northwest. US wanted to aid opposition with medical assistance or help create a “Safe Zone” despite many policy pundits talking about military intervention or establishing a ‘no-fly-zone’.[6]

Reservations about immediate military intervention in Syria, however, have prevailed so far with the argument that the opposition is yet not a formidable and cohesive force to sustain from within. Unlike the viable opposition in the form of Transitional National Council in Libya, Syrian National Council (SNC) took seven months to come in existence only and has not yet been widely recognized. SNC’s poor posturing and sending mixed and confused messages have further eroded their credibility. Free Syrian Army (FSA) is yet another organization in opposition that boasts of some 15,000 defectors in its ranks. Some western pundits see it as the only rebel force battling troops loyal to Damascus and actively defending civilians and provide cover to protesting civilians be it in the city of Homs or elsewhere but it has remained only a threat to be talked about without committing or delivering anything on the ground. Then, there is the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria which is considered a cover organization pushing its agenda. However, there are others, who were made to flee the country, making serious efforts from out-side to bring about a change.

With the increasing crescendo from the Arab world, West and other countries, the pressure to bring in normalcy has been mounting. The UN General Assembly in February 2012 has voted to support an Arab League call for Syria's Bashar al-Assad to quit as President. The assembly voted 137-12 for the resolution, which isn't legally binding though. Seventeen countries abstained from voting, while Russia and China voted against the plan as they see it resulting into escalation of foreign intervention leading to regime change. Russia has repeatedly said it does not want Syria to become another Libya. Syria is Russia’s last remaining ally in the Arab world and is thought to have major economic interests in Syria, including arms contracts, a Russian-leased naval base (Syrian port of Tartus) and plans for nuclear energy cooperation.[7] China's critics say China's veto of the U.N. draft resolution was in part due to Beijing's fear that allowing a regime change in Syria could encourage the spread of the Arab revolution and eventually threaten China. Chinese disagree with this explanation and claim no self-interest on Syrian issue.[8]

In further unfolding of events and despite having voted against UN Human Rights Council resolution that condemned Syria for "widespread and systematic violations" against civilians, Russia and China have, however, supported the Press statement on the demand by The United Nations Security Council that UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos be allowed "immediate and unhindered access" to Syria by the government there, amid a heavy government assault on a restive city. Her visit was allowed to some of the areas.  In a further and recent development, UN special envoy Kofi Annan has met President Assad in Damascus to press for ceasefire which were not accepted.  According to Syria's state news service a political solution is impossible as long as "terrorist groups" threaten the country. It is reported that the ground troops have entered the Baba Amr district of Homs, where armed rebels have held out under a month of bombardment.[9] 

India had voted in support of the latest UN Security Council resolution on Syria. The shift from New Delhi’s earlier opposition to efforts by the US and its allies to obtain a resolution on Syria has been seen as an attempt to edge closer to these powers.[10] From the Indian perspective the prolonged crisis in Syria has many sides to it. On one side India’s energy needs and its dependence on West Asia and the presence of a large Indian expatriate workers in the region demand the peace and stability in our extended neighborhood while on the other hand there is a legitimate concern that any external intervention is certainly going to be costly in terms of civilian casualties as has been the recent experience. Any international intervention on the pretext of responsibility to protect innocent civilian lives must also be weighed against the potential of rationalizing the bulldozing off the idea of sovereignty of a nation. Struggle for gaining regional supremacy by any country has to be prevented for common good. Ultimate side of Syrian crisis is that India too has to guard its long term interests in the region just like every other country does and has to be on the side that keeps a fine balance between the divergent pulling forces.

As violence continues in the country, Assad has announced Parliamentary elections in Syria on May 07, 2012. The crisis is deep and dynamics are swiftly taking a turn and it is hoped that these culminate in a peaceful resolution of the impasse.

 

 

Endnotes