“With respect to
Syria,” President Barack Obama said yesterday at his joint press conference
with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, “the United States
continues to work with allies and friends and the Syrian opposition to hasten
the end of Assad’s rule, to stop the violence against the Syrian people, and
begin the transition towards a new government that respects the rights of all
its people. Assad has lost his legitimacy to lead by attacking the Syrian
people with almost every conventional weapon in his arsenal, including Scud
missiles…”
 |
| Mauritania's Muhammad bin Mukhtar al-Shinqiti |
But with the start this
week of Syria’s third year of rebellion, the question remains: Why is ending
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule taking so long?
The overriding reasons
are six, according to an outstanding scholar, analyst and author from
Mauritania, Muhammad bin Mukhtar al-Shinqiti, writing
for the “Viewpoint” section of Aljazeera.net.
Shinqiti has a bachelor's degree in Sharia law, a master’s in business administration from Columbia
Southern University in Orange Beach, Alabama, and a PhD in the history of
religions from the University of Texas at Austin.
In his think piece for Aljazeera,
Shinqiti explains the six impediments to ending Assad’s rule at a gallop:
One:
Unlike in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, the makeup
of the army in Syria is sectarian. Ninety percent of its commanding officers
and key battalions are Alawite. Breaking its cohesion is time-consuming and
costly.
Giving added strength to Assad’s regime is
the mobilization for its defense of the region’s Shiite infrastructure – all
the way from Lebanon to Iran. The enlistment takes in most Arab Shiite elites in
the region.
Two:
The second impediment is Russia’s support
of Assad’s savagery, a stand that can be explained culturally and
strategically.
Culturally, French political thinker and
historian Alexis
de Tocqueville envisaged in the 19th century two great nations –
America and Russia – advancing toward world supremacy in the 20th
century.
“All other peoples seem to
have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve
them; but these two are growing,” he wrote, adding:
“The American fights against natural
obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness
and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests
are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the
former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided
strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates
the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means
of action; the other has servitude.”
You can blame Moscow’s stance vis-à-vis the
Syrian revolution on the culture of “servitude” that is still prevailing in
Russia. The largest country in Europe continues to be ruled by a KGB officer,
Vladimir Putin, whose administration frowns at the Syrian revolution’s victory
prospects for fear of its template resurfacing elsewhere.
Strategically, the Putin administration’s
politics on Mediterranean shores are a Cold War throwback.
The culture of “servitude” is equally
dominant in China, a single-party state.
Three:
Halfhearted backing from Arab governments is
the third factor taxing the Syrian people’s rebellion. Libya and Qatar have
been the only two Arab states to stand solidly behind the Syrian revolution.
Most of the others sufficed with lukewarm diplomatic support. Some stand by
Assad either openly or covertly. Algerian army generals oppose any serious step
against the regime lest the Arab Spring reaches their country’s borders. Iraq
backs Assad to the hilt for shocking sectarian reasons. Lebanon is two
sectarian halves.
There is no better indicator of the Arab
state’s halfhearted backing of the Syrian people than their choice of two Arab
envoys to Syria – namely, Sudan’s Gen. Mohammed al-Dabi and Algeria’s Lakhdar
Brahimi. Both Sudan and Algeria are ruled by the military that simply abhor the
Arab Spring.
Compare such official Arab apathy with Iran’s
unwavering support of Assad financially, politically and militarily at a time
when Iran’s defeat in Syria is now a key Arab strategic priority.
Four:
The fourth hurdle is Turkey’s hesitancy in
arming the Syrian rebels. Turkey made available to the Syrian people two lung
transplants, one for humanitarian aid and the other for political breathing.
Without them, the Syrian people’s suffering would have been intolerable and the
chances of their revolution’s success little.
As a strategic bridge between East and West,
Turkey is a regional heavyweight, except that it seems unwilling to take strategic
risks and remains committed to the West’s ban on arming Syrian rebels.
Short of this changing, Syria will remain an
open wound on Turkish borders and Turkey will likely loose its sympathetic Arab
street as well as prospective strategic interests in Arab Spring countries.
Five:
The fifth hurdle standing in the way of a
dash to victory in Syria is the duplicity of America and Europe’s political
elites. They are deliberately starving the Syrian revolution of weapons in order
to pooh-pooh and lay siege to the Arab Spring.
Despite the deep chasm between the American
and Russian positions on the revolt, for instance, both sides agree on wrecking
Syria. America wants Syria destroyed to see Assad out while Russia wants Syria
destroyed to keep Assad in.
The West’s embargo on arming the Syrian
people is nothing more than a license to the regime to keep killing. It is a
replay of the West imposing the embargo on arming Bosnian Muslims once it
ascertained the Serbs had secured arms supply lines from Russia.
Six:
The sixth cause of the stalemate after two
years is the Israeli position and the weight the position carries in American
and European decision-making circles.
A (May 2011 Tel Aviv-datelined) report
in the Christian Science Monitor said Assad’s downfall would remove a
key player in the Iran-led alliance threatening the Jewish state, but Assad’s Syria
has been a stable neighbor and maintained a regional balance that Israeli officials
and analysts fear could crumble.
The report quoted Giora Eilan, a
former national security adviser under former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, as
saying Sharon once slammed an Israeli who suggested that regime change in
Syria. “Sharon said, ‘Are you crazy?’” he recalls. “The best for the time
being, is having a Bashar Assad who is fighting for his legitimacy.’”
