Written by:
Bryan Fong, Year 12
Running
since March 2011, the current civil war in Syria is a topic that has long been
in the international spotlight as a situation fraught with ethical and
humanitarian tragedies. A major concern of many nations and organisations
worldwide, the Syrian Civil War has given rise to countless accounts, issues,
and international tensions that have left the rest of the world in relentless
pursuit of the situation’s rapid resolution. However, waged between the
authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad and the various rebel organisations disenfranchised
and repressed by Assad, the civil war shows little sign of mellowing anytime
soon as the impassioned forces on all sides continue to refuse to give any
quarter.
Historically
speaking, despite the current debate over the potentially sectarian nature of
the Syrian Civil War, it is widely accepted that the roots of the conflict did
indeed originate from religious tensions within the nation. This first emerged
in 1920 when, during the French and British introduction of nation states and
country borders to the Middle East after WWI, the established Syrian borders
resulted in an imposed pluralistic society comprised of several ethnic and
religious groups. However, sectarian tensions only truly came to the fore when,
during the Cold War, the Ba’ath Party (lead by Hafez al-Assad, father of the
current Assad) was assisted by Soviet Russia in taking control of Syria in
exchange for Syria’s alliance to Russia. Granting the USSR access to Syria’s
warm water ports (of which Russia has none) and a foothold in the Middle East,
such an alliance was particularly valuable to the Soviets and even to this day
Russia remains a close ally of Syria. Alawite in composition, the Ba’ath Party
ensured the pre-eminence of the Alawite religious populace in Syria, despite their
comprising only 12% of Syria’s population. Based ostensibly on the desire to
avoid the country falling under the influence of extremists, the Ba’ath Party
preferentially allocated benefits such as employment, scholarships, and high
ranking appointments to Alawites as opposed to other sects – in particular the
Sunni Muslims, who made up approximately 74% of the population, which many
extremist groups belonged to. Though managing to modernise Syria’s economy, the
Ba’ath Party was only able to accomplish this through a brutal repression of
the rest of the non-Alawite Syrian population, often imprisoning, torturing, or
killing any who opposed them. Maintained through the reign of Hafez al-Assad
and his son, Bashar al-Assad, this authoritarian regime fostered nationwide
sectarian tensions and widespread dissent against the Ba’ath Party. After
festering for decades, these tensions finally broke into open pro-democratic
protests during the Arab Spring (a revolutionary wave of demonstrations,
protests, riots, and civil wars that took place all over the Arab world).
Answered by brutal crackdowns by the Syrian military on the protestors, to
which protestors responded by protesting even more violently, this eventually
culminated in the Syrian military firing upon protestors on March 2011 in the
city of Deraa – viewed by many as the start of the civil war.
Following
the shootings in Deraa, armed rebel groups started to appear almost immediately
throughout the nation, and Syria was plunged into a civil war (officially
recognised on July 2012 by the Red Cross) that has to date claimed the lives of
over 100,000 people and displaced over 6.4 million people. Spearheaded by the
Free Syrian Army, a large opposition military force comprised of military
defectors and volunteer soldiers, armed resistance against Assad’s regime has
been growing since the start of the civil uprising. Despite initial
disadvantages in numbers and weaponry, the rebel armed forces have since shown
themselves to be potent threats to the Syrian Army. Managing to emerge
victorious from several serious military engagements, the rebel groups have
even shown themselves capable of capturing strategically critical locations
such as the major city of Aleppo, and large military bases such as Base 46. However,
due to these deficiencies in technology and troops, the rebels have been unable
to emerge superior to Assad’s forces. Indeed, despite their victories, the
rebel military forces have often crumbled under focused pressure from the
Syrian Army – which now has aid from Iran and the Hezbollah from Lebanon. Furthermore,
despite originating as – and still remaining largely as – a pro-democratic
resistance force, the rebel forces are not unified in command or ideology. Existing
as a conglomerate of rebel armed groups fighting for separate goals, there are
rebel factions such as the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and
Opposition Forces (Syrian National Coalition) fighting for democracy, and there
are those such as the Al-Nusra which have identified themselves with the
Al-Qaeda. Though united in their hatred for the Assad regime, these rebel groups
share little else and often conflict with one another, leading to violence and
the deaths of both rebel soldiers and civilians alike (often as a result of the
extremist groups affiliated with some of the rebel forces). Fracturing and
weakening the opposition movement from within, this has also led to the
stalling of foreign aid to the rebel forces, as the divided nature of the rebel
forces has left many countries concerned that their supplies could end up in
the hands of extremist groups such as Al-Nusra.
However,
despite widespread international condemnation of Assad’s regime and war
tactics, the Syrian Civil War has to date largely avoided interference from the
UN. This is because, due to vested interests in Syria – such as the diplomatic
foothold in Middle East and warm water ports for Russia– Russia and China have
vetoed several resolutions in the Security Council calling for military
interference in Syria. Additionally, powerful democratic nations also remained
inactive towards Syria. For example, in the case of the USA, this was due to a
desire to avoid a repetition of its disastrous campaign in Iraq, and to avoid
unnecessary military interference in such an unstable situation. This is
because such military action could create a power vacuum that extremist groups
such as Al-Qaeda could exploit, as they did in Iraq. This issue is particularly
pertinent for Syria as, while Assad is generally condemned by democratic
ideology and has had connections with the Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah forces, the rebel
armed forces also possess several extremist groups that could stand to gain
significantly from foreign support – leaving many countries unsure of the
overall benefit of supporting the rebel groups at all. Locking the
international community in a state of inactivity towards Syria, the Civil War
was slated to run its course outside of the international military arena and
spotlight. That is, until the issue of chemical warfare arose.
Having
stated in early 2013, that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a
‘red line’, Obama began to renew his attempts to provide American military
interference against Assad’s regime when UN inspectors concluded in September
2013 that indeed Sarin Gas had been used against forces opposing Assad’s rule. Breaking
international norm and resulting in hundreds of deaths, the use of chemical
warfare prompted several powerful international leaders to support Obama in his
call for action. However once again, Russia vetoed the UN movement for action
against Assad. This time however, Obama, David Cameron, and several other
prominent nation leaders called for their respective governments to provide military
intervention without UN support. Yet, while the UK ultimately withheld military
support due to the motion failing in the House of Commons, Obama authorised the
sending of weapons to Syrian rebels and called on Congress to approve military
action – despite a public outcry against military intervention in the USA. However,
before a decision was reached, a rhetoric statement by John Kerry on the unlikelihood
that Assad’s regime would simply hand over their chemical weapon stockpile to
the international community to prevent an American assault, allowed Russia to
broker exactly such a deal between Syria and the USA. As such, despite concerns
over the legitimacy of such pledges from Russia and Syria, the difficulty of
such a procedure in a country besieged by civil war, and the lost opportunity
for direct reprisal against Assad’s regime for their crimes, international
direct military intervention has largely been averted – with the exception of
Iran on the side of Assad. Instead, a diplomatic solution to the issue of
chemical weaponry was initiated on the 20th of September 2013,
aiming to remove all chemical weapons and related components from Syria by
mid-2014 and destroy them externally. Additionally, the EU and the USA have
since lifted embargoes and policies preventing them from supplying the Syrian
rebels, and are now providing indirect support and backing to the Syrian
National Coalition and the FSA through shipments of weapons and non-lethal aid.
Ultimately,
the Syrian civil war is unfortunately still very much going strong, and hitherto,
any attempts at diplomatic peace-making continue to fall flat; two rounds of
talks in January and February of 2014 failed to procure any results due to the
staunch refusal of the Assad regime to discuss any opposition demands for a
transitional government to be formed. Though many experts believe that Assad
will eventually fall, it is almost impossible to tell when or what would happen
after as Assad’s forces have killed so many non-Alawite civilian and military
leaders, that it is extremely unclear who would lead Syria in the event of
Assad’s downfall. A pro-democratic united government may rise in accordance
with the hopes of much of the international community. However, the fractured
nature of the rebel forces may simply devolve Syria into another civil war in
the wake of Assad’s downfall, calling into question the peacetime integrity of
the rebel coalition. The power vacuum left by the downfall of the Ba’ath Party may
even give rise to extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda taking advantage of a power
vacuum to reinforce their influence in the region. However, the one thing that
is clear is that, with a death toll in the hundred thousands, millions of
Syrians displaced due to the war, and sectarian tensions higher than ever,
whomever rises to lead Syria out of the civil war will be inheriting a country
and people scarred and broken.
0 comments:
Post a Comment