The Syrian Conundrum: A Blot on the World's Conscience

The bloody impasse and fighting in Syria continues. According to the Economist newspaper, the death toll is almost a staggering 250 deaths per day.  The Syrian regime has gone berserk and killings appear to be random, punitive and retributive . The world watches, issuing merely declamatory statements. The Russians’ and the Iranians’ support to the Bashar al Assad regime does not merely prop up the regime but helps shift the balance of power and forces to the regime’s favor. The United Nations-true to its character-remains mute. The United States –the only power that could do something the decisively helps the Syrian people- weary after its Gulf War II adventure and its lame duck president is aloof.  The future of the Arab Spring is a great ‘unknown unknown’. The Islamic world mired in its own problems and rather important issues laughable and lame statements. Meanwhile, Syrians suffer and die. Nobody cares. The future of the country and its people appears to be trapped and caught in the vortex of international politics, geo politics of the region and the inability of world powers to arrive at a consensus over the Syrian question.

 

The whole saga raises a set of questions: should this bloody state of affairs be allowed to continue? What accounts for the lackadaisical and callous attitude of world powers to quotidian killings on such a scale? How can a clear cut rogue(Bashar Al Assad) be allowed to murder his own people? Is the rogue state and leader labeling by the United States a self serving exercise motivated by ideology than genuine humanitarian concerns? Are human rights violations and the attendant furor that these raise in selective conditions and situations a mere political and politicized instrument? And last but not the least, what should be immediately done to stop the massacres in Syria   and alleviate the sufferings of Syrians?

 

The bloody state of affairs in Syria should stop. And the responsibility for this falls on the West or more accurately the United States. This is because it is only the United States or western powers in concert with the United States that can stop the blood shed. This naturally and axiomatically entails military intervention.

 

 The nature of this military intervention would be noble and genuine. It would mean and imply that the west is genuine and sincere about one of its founding premises: human rights, holding these sacrosanct and deeming their violation as a serious crime. In this sense, it would be non ideological.  Non action or allowing the state of affairs to continue would imply that it is in the final analysis, raison d’etat that reigns supreme and ideals and humanitarian considerations do not matter in the calculations of world powers. It would also indict the west in having double standards. That is, noises are made about human rights violations only when the west has an axe to grind or when the interests of western powers are at stake. However, given the United States’ Gulf War II experience, the putative exit from Afghanistan and domestic political reasons in western countries, this is a far fetched aspiration and hope.

 

 

Obiter dictum, the Syrian sage also exposes Iran’s claims to speak for and care about the Islamic world or the ummah. Iran , by supporting the Assad regime, with material and diplomatic support is clearly proving that what it really cares for is the interests of the state which include security for itself, cover and support  for its proxies and its aspirations of regional hegemony.  It does not appear to give two hoots about Syrians.

 

So what can be done to stop the bloodshed? The usual measures in the armory of the international community-sanctions, isolation of the regime- will not work. The Assad regime does not care and will not be affected by taking recourse to these. The only alternative then is to bring the Assad regime into the cross hairs of regime change. A prudent approach toward regime change in Syria would entail and involve bringing on board regional powers like Turkey, Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Involving these powers would not only legitimize regime change and military intervention but also lead to burden sharing of men, materiel and other resources. It would also send out a clear signal and message to the Assad regime that the world is serious and gravely concerned about the situation in Syria and is happy do take action to remedy it.

 

The line of action suggested here is not easy. However, it is not impossible. It can be done. What is missing is the will and desire and the attendant problems of collective action. This leads us back to the United States. Despite the hits it has taken and its rather soporific state now, it is only the sole super power that can catalyze and galvanize international action against the Syrian regime. This may even constitute a fine legacy for the lame duck and lack luster President Obama. It is about time then that the United States does something bold and beautiful. The world expects it and the Syrians need it.