Behind the red line in Syria

On March 15, 2011, the people of Der'aa stepped out to demonstrate against the Syrian government. This was the first evidence that the contagion of the Arab Spring had crossed over from Egypt and Tunisia to a regime that had been in power for the past 34 years in Damascus. It has been two years since the world witnessed this peaceful stirring for change in Syria, before it mutated into a nasty and brutish uprising. During this period, all the other Arab countries that saw the so-called democratic upsurge reached a quick, if at times, violent denouement, facilitated by blatant Western involvement. But Syria still bleeds due to covert and overt involvement of Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the involvement of al-Qaeda that have all come together to overthrow a secular regime. This stalemate may soon end.

According to the UN interlocutor for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, nationals from 38 countries are fighting for the overthrow of the Bashar Hafez al-Assad government. Till now the US has resisted use of force to smoke out the regime, but all this may change after President Barack Obama's visit to the Middle East and some hectic parleying by US Secretary of State John Kerry with the countries of that region. It seems possible that the US government may do a rethink on an earlier commitment made to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov not to use force to oust the regime. It is mobilizing countries like Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arraigned against Syria and Iran. Since these ducks have been lined up in a row, the red line drawn by President Obama for Syria if it decides to use chemical weapons is under threat. Recent reports from Aleppo suggesting that the chemical weapons could have been used recently, has raised the possibility of an intervention by Nato forces.

The real reason to cast off the garb of covert warfare and send the missiles and drones into Syria would be not just meeting the objective of removing the Ba'athist regime, but a lot more. By attacking Syria, the coalition countries from the Arab world and the West hope to determine the outcome of the forthcoming Iranian elections and to nip the ambitions of Russia to re-emerge as a world power.  It is a grand game that has taken a while to unpack.

These past two years, the Western powers have only looked at the stepping down of Assad, allowing the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) or its other avatars to take over. Assad has proved that he has plenty of support in his country, despite whatever the Western observers and media might be suggesting. Recently, New York Times columnist Thomas L Friedman told the US Congressional committee that Assad had support in his country and those who were opposing him belonged to al-Qaeda and radical Islamists supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The US government is aware of how the vacuum created by Assad's departure would allow al-Qaeda to take over the country, so it is hoping to find an alternative to take care of its concerns.

His regime may be brutal but, to his credit, Assad has been a tough implementer of secularist policies that provided security to Christians, Alawites and Shias in a Sunni-majority country. Women, too, were given enough head space to breach the glass ceiling to actualize their potential. As the composition of the rebels is radically Islamist, all the rights that his Ba'athist regime guaranteed to women and minorities are imperilled. When this writer visited Damascus a few months after the Der'aa demonstration, women wore western clothes and did not even cover their heads. Six months later, the scene had changed dramatically. Fear of those knocking at the city gates was visible in the women of Damascus. Many had begun to wear the hijab and abaya.

A sectarian spin was given to the violence in the country with suggestions that Sunnis had been kept out of power by apostates and they were reclaiming their rightful place. The violence built into this narrative has been given credibility by the Western and Arab media. Every news report by agencies repeated ad nauseum how the Sunnis were fighting against a Shia-leaning Alawite regime. From their standpoint it used to be difficult for Ba'ath regime detractors to explain how the Syrian leadership had so many Sunnis supporting him. After the recent assassination of a prominent clergyman, Buti, in Damascus, the obituaries in the Western press painted him as some kind of aberration – a Sunni supporting an Alawite in Assad.

It is the sectarian implosion that threatens the entire region. Lebanon, which was earlier part of the larger Syria, has all the complexities that abound in its neighbour. Barely had it recovered from its long civil war and subsequent Israeli face-offs, it has had to deal with the social and political instability of Syria. Lebanon's political leadership is divided between those who are in favour of Syria and those opposed to it and this has been exposed by newspapers like Al Akhbar that have tape recordings of politicians supporting Syrian rebels and organizing arms for them. The net outcome of this messy tug of war is that the government in Lebanon has collapsed. The fear is that Lebanon may once again lapse into violence.

Israel, sitting pretty since the protests swept the Arab world, is unsure how the collapse of the regime in Damascus would impact it. The country has enjoyed 35 years of stability and peace in the Golan Heights, but recently there have been reports of skirmishes. A diminished Syrian army constitutes no threat to Israel, but any confrontation in the Golan Heights between the two countries would make it difficult for other Arab countries to oppose Syria. When Israeli jets pounded some chemical plants in Syria, countries like Turkey demanded that Damascus retaliate against the intruder. Expectedly, the Syrians did nothing and waited for the response from the rebels. After Obama brokered peace between Turkey and Israel, it is unlikely Ankara would make such angry noises. The Israeli media believes that the peace between the two countries was necessary to have a coordinated response to Syria. Turkey had for long tried to reason with Assad to accommodate the Muslim Brotherhood in the proposed transition, but the Syrian leader did not oblige. The Turks, who were looking at a regional power status for themselves, were keen to have closer ties with neighbours, but found that history, often in disguise, can block intentions.

As those opposed to Syria try to fine-tune their strategy, the situation in the country remains grim. During a recent trip to Delhi, Bouthiana Shaban, an adviser to President Assad, described the tragedy unfolding in her country. She talked about how terrorists were ravaging her country. "… 3,800 schools have been destroyed and 1,800 factories have been dismantled. It is war against our infrastructure," she said. She held the Arab media responsible for spreading falsehoods about Syria. According to her, the secular character of her country was being irreversibly changed. In the city of Homs, she said, there used to be 500,000 Christians, a few hundreds are still there. She feels that whatever change is being proposed would not protect the minorities.

She sought support from BRICS countries, but it is unlikely this bloc can do much. What is awaited is how the crossing of the "red line" is announced to the world.

———————————-

Sanjay Kapoor is the Editor of Delhi based Hardnews Magazine (www.hardnewsmedia.com). Hardnews is also the South Asian partner of Paris based publication, Le Monde Diplomatique.