Thursday, July 19, 2012

Delaying the Syrian endgame

There are four compelling arguments for allowing Russia to prevent liberal intervention in Syria.

By Larbi Sadiki

"....A devil's advocate argument sees Russia's role as a silver lining, ominously gaining momentum as Syria is now in the throes of a civil war, an indigenous battle for liberation from authoritarianism.

There are four compelling arguments for letting Russia do what it does best: preventing liberal intervention in Syria.

1. Self-liberation as self-mastery

....In the final scheme of things, Russia's intransigence and objection to intervention in Syria may be unwittingly proving its use: strengthening the Syrian people's resolve to self-liberate and the FSA to operate accordingly, relying on indigenous resources.

Since Islam was brought to Damascus in 635, the city has many times relied on its local resources for liberating itself.

2. Avoiding a repeat of Libya

There are lessons to be learned in Syria from the intervention in Libya. Probably the most important of these lessons is that in the absence of a political programme, effective leadership, civil and civic capacity-building, and a quasi "government-in-waiting", the end of military hostilities are marked by the start of disarray, schisms and internecine fighting.....

Transition in Syria demands a great deal of preparatory work at this crucial stage before the regime collapses. In particular, sectarian pluralism must be converted into democratic capital, thus preventing it from derailing a smooth transition once the Assads are out of the way. One particularly important lesson from Libya is for the Syrian government-in-waiting to develop a vision for transitional justice given the grotesque human rights violations already committed and the potential for revenge by the victims.

3. Indigeneity and the Arab Spring

The Arab Spring has largely been home-grown, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, where it has unfolded with no need for outside intervention. The intervention in Libya is the exception: without NATO's operations, Gaddafi would have prolonged his rule, giving him enough time to commit additional crimes against the Libyan people.

There is no "free lunch" in international politics. So Russia's role in the Syrian crisis without a doubt has downsides. However, one of its unintended outcomes is that the Arab Spring is spared further intervention and meddling by outside powers.

Freedom is never given, and it is better when earned through indigenous resources and energy, which abound in Syria. The cost has so far been high in human lives, and this is very regrettable. It would have, however, been even higher if more potent weapons, including surgical operations, had been used by NATO or UN-mandated forces.....

Russia will know to drop the Assads when the alarm bells of the endgame are sounded. Russia has not done that as quickly as the world wants it to, but that may in the big scheme of things prove to be an opportunity, not just an adversity."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis by Palestinian Pundit on Syria: yes no intervention and let the Syrian people liberate its country from dictatorship without the West. I agree completely.