Bashar Al-Assad has been the president of Syria since the year 2000. After his father died, he inherited the presidency. He now faces one of the biggest challenges of his rule with the civil war and military intervention from the US, France, and possibly soon NATO. Russia has now intervened on his behalf to stop ISIS advancement. As much as the West wants Assad's removal, this would cause further destabilization. The various ethnic, religious, and cultural groups would attempt to destroy one another. An Islamist take over would be inevitable, seeing as they are the most organized political force. This parallels the US invasion of Iraq in which a leader is demonized and the public is convinced war is necessary. Removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq was a disaster. This could be expanded enormously if replicated in Syria. The West believes that the collapsing situation is entirely the fault of President Assad. The US has sought to remove the Baathist regime for decades. The disorder caused by the Arab Spring provided an opportunity to do so. The US- EU block has no intention of negotiated settlement, but expanding the war. Doing so would place a client regime in Syria and eliminate a regional challenger to Israel. At first these protests that emerged were peaceful , but they were eclipsed by full scale rebellion. Eventually, a simplistic narrative emerged. Assad was a villainous butcher murdering his own people and the rebels were fighting for a just cause. None of this represents the nature of the deterioration of the state. The country is going through a balkanization process similar to Yugoslavia. It attracted external powers and resulted in devastating consequences that will last for decades.
To fully comprehend the crisis, one must know about president Bashar Al-Assad. He is a member of the Alawite Shia Muslim community, which is the minority that rules Syria. Bashar was originally not going to be the successor to Hafez Al-Assad. Basil Assad was heir apparent, but he died in a car crash in 1994. Bashar was studying medicine with the intent to be an ophthalmologist. Bashar was then groomed for the presidency. Bashar Al-Assad went to the military academy at Homs, attained the rank of colonel, and then worked as an advisor to the government. President Assad was actually a reformer. During the early stages of his presidency, political prisoners were released, some media restrictions were lifted, and some criticism of the political system was tolerated .
Russia during the Cold War was a major ally of Syria. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a negative development for Syria in terms of access to economic aid. Bashar Al-Assad revived the Syria- Russia alliance. He understood it was imperative during the early 2000s. The Bush administration had made regime change an official policy. Syria was a target and declared part of the "axis of evil." Relations between the US and Syria have never been normal, but at this point the rhetoric became more bellicose. Syria would have to rely on Russia to block the US from a possible invasion. Assad then looked to other countries to gain diplomatic support. One leader known to challenge US global dominance was former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Bashar Al-Assad reached out to Venezuela on a number of political and international issues. The reason for this was to rebuild Syria's socialist values by showing solidarity with like minded governments and the global south. This included making diplomatic overtures to various Latin American nations.
To fully comprehend the crisis, one must know about president Bashar Al-Assad. He is a member of the Alawite Shia Muslim community, which is the minority that rules Syria. Bashar was originally not going to be the successor to Hafez Al-Assad. Basil Assad was heir apparent, but he died in a car crash in 1994. Bashar was studying medicine with the intent to be an ophthalmologist. Bashar was then groomed for the presidency. Bashar Al-Assad went to the military academy at Homs, attained the rank of colonel, and then worked as an advisor to the government. President Assad was actually a reformer. During the early stages of his presidency, political prisoners were released, some media restrictions were lifted, and some criticism of the political system was tolerated .
The reforms were being implemented at a sluggish pace. The also were being hindered by the army, the Baath Party, and the Alawite minority. The conservative elements of Syrian society reacted to change they hated or feared, Assad was being a political realist, understanding reforms had to happen to keep the fragile country unified. He did not have the support for the reforms in the political establishment. These elements could not completely eliminate them, but delay their development.Simultaneously, the population was growing restless. Bashar Al-Assad once said that "democracy was a tool for a better life"This could not be rushed due to ethnic and religious hatreds.There were some accomplishments of his presidency despite opposition to the reforms. Syria by 2001 had cellphones, satellite television, and was looking to expand a business sector into information technology. Assad continued to keep the economy state controlled, but it was believed that it would transition to a free market. Assad continues to vociferously oppose Israel. It was the same policy of his father that has continued. The reason is obvious, due to Israel's past conflicts with Syria and the occupation of the Golan Heights. There was a shift in policy in regards to Lebanon. Syria began gradually withdrawing troops. Full with draw happened in 2005, when Syria was accused of involvement in the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Bashar Al-Assad's strategy was to maintain a close alliance with Hezbollah, Hamas, and an alleged relationship with Islamic Jihad. It is a way to challenge Israel indirectly. The Syrian army is not as powerful as Israel's so Assad continues to ally his country with Iran. This acts a balance to Israeli power. Syria's foreign policy is pragmatic using different alliances and groups to achieve its objectives.
 |
| Assad visits Moscow in the 2000s |
 |
| Hugo Chavez and Bashar Al-Assad |
This would allow him to increase his popularity and alter international public opinion. Attempting to place Syria in a non-aligned stance would give it more options. The only real commitment it has is to Iran. Syria has received generous assistance from the Islamic Republic. Even though the government is secular, it still holds the alliance with Iran because they are of the Shia Muslim sect. This factors into regional politics that are divided by Sunni lead governments and Shia led governments .Bashar Al-Assad's foreign policy moves vexed the US. Being a pragmatist he attempted ease tensions in 2006 by saying "I am not Saddam Hussein I'm willing to negotiate." This was during the Hezbollah war with Israel, which Syria supported. This explains why Bashar Al-Assad still has a portion of support. His anti-Israel stance makes him popular among certain sections of the Syrian population. Relations with Turkey were deteriorating before the civil war. Water rights were are major source of contention. When Turkey opened its borders during the early stages of the civil war it was to undermine Syria, not save refugees.
Another policy that the Bashar Al-Assad presidency advocated was relations with Libya. Most Arab states either ignored or isolated Libya. The Gulf monarchies held much contempt for the North African nation. Syria, being marginalized itself felt that diplomatic relations with Libya would be in its best interest. Syria and Libya had attempted Pan-Arab mergers in the past, but negotiations collapsed. When NATO commenced bombing in accordance to UN Resolution 1973, Syria objected.It was becoming apparent that Syria was the next country for a military strike.Protests were increasing in Syria with demands for an end to the state of emergency, restoration of civil rights, and general political reforms. These were objectives that Assad wanted, but were stopped by the army and the Baath Party elite. Now, he could push these reforms through citing the public's demand for them. The protesters demands were not to depose the Bashar Al-Assad, but to see the long awaited reforms happen. The state of emergency laws were lifted and Kurds were allowed to vote.The reforms came too late and the balkanization process already began. Islamist attacks occurred, ethnic cleansing directed at Kurds was sparked, and the West started arming a number of groups. The Baathist government made the situation worse by doing crackdowns of protests. Homs and Damascus were areas of intense civil disorder. The military response that Bashar Al-Assad advocated only resulted in civilian deaths and the rise of terrorist organizations. Government backed Shabeeha (militia) were fighting numerous anti-regime forces.The US, UK, France, and most the EU began calling for Assad removal. The crisis they failed to understand was more intricate than Assad versus the people. Around the fall of 2011, Syria was suspended from the Arab League. The following year the country had reached full scale civil war. Assad now faces one of the biggest challenges to his presidency. His survival seems uncertain, but if he falls it could lead to more chaos.
Syria was a creation of the mandate system. It was agreed that France would administer Syria after World War I. To make it easier to control areas were divided based on ethnic and religious tension. The Kurds had to remain separated among each other between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. If unified they could have formed a powerful state. The Shia and Sunni Muslims were put in the same state and it was only a matter of time before conflict would be ignited. The demographics and geography of play a role in the current conflict. The majority of the population is Sunni Arab with a government run by an Alawite Shia Muslim Arab minority. There are Kurds present in the north of the country. Druze Arabs and Christians are prevalent in the southern regions. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the opposite having a Sunni minority led government. Syria and Iraq had poor relations despite both having Baath Party branches. This tension was both ideological, national, and religious. Syria's relations with Iraq improved when Saddam Hussein was deposed. This gave Syria an opportunity to capture support of the Shia majority in Iraq.
 |
| Assad and Qaddafi |
Syria was a creation of the mandate system. It was agreed that France would administer Syria after World War I. To make it easier to control areas were divided based on ethnic and religious tension. The Kurds had to remain separated among each other between Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. If unified they could have formed a powerful state. The Shia and Sunni Muslims were put in the same state and it was only a matter of time before conflict would be ignited. The demographics and geography of play a role in the current conflict. The majority of the population is Sunni Arab with a government run by an Alawite Shia Muslim Arab minority. There are Kurds present in the north of the country. Druze Arabs and Christians are prevalent in the southern regions. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the opposite having a Sunni minority led government. Syria and Iraq had poor relations despite both having Baath Party branches. This tension was both ideological, national, and religious. Syria's relations with Iraq improved when Saddam Hussein was deposed. This gave Syria an opportunity to capture support of the Shia majority in Iraq.
The Shia majority in Iraq exacted vengeance upon the Sunni minority. Militias and what were essentially death squads emerged.Sunnis decided to take up arms in Iraq and this would be the harbinger to ISIS. Armed groups who found themselves unable to overthrow Assad, relocated in Iraq and established bases of operations. They continue to attack Syria while other armed groups compete for power. The Al-Nusra Front is an organization that is Islamist, while the Free Syria Army consists of defectors. Hezbollah provides assistance to Assad and were helpful in major military victories. Iran who does not want to see an ISIS victory and a loss of Syria would be devastating.These armed groups are organizing based on ethnic and religious hatreds. It has been documented that ISIS continues to engage in ethic cleansing of the Kurds. The Yazidi were subject to similar atrocities in Iraq. Bashar Al-Assad's fall would only escalate racial and religious confrontation.
This crisis has now attracted the intervention of European powers. The UK has now began bombing targets. Germany is still deciding witch path to take. Russia has said that the best method to defeating ISIS is to support Assad. His army has been fighting both armed opposition and terrorist organizations. After the Paris attacks, France used the tragedy to advance an aggressive foreign policy.President Francois Hollande's foreign policy has become interventionist expanding missions to Syria, Mali, and the African Central Republic.France wants influence over its former colonies and continues to use military force to do so. This revived imperial conquest has been justified as a solution to the refugee crisis. The argument is that if Assad is removed and ISIS is dismantled by airstrikes the problem will end. This would exacerbate an already precarious situation.The increase of bombing causes more civilians to flee to Europe. Forming a no-fly zone will not be effective, because it is only partitioning the country by plane. The people who cannot flee are held hostage by ISIS in the territories they control. The only way to remove ISIS would be by ground invasion. This would not ensure success; it will only provide more motivation for resistance. It seems that their are two versions of imperialism competing for regional control. There is the US-EU block supporting armed groups or as it is phrased "moderate opposition" against Assad. Simultaneously, the United States has sent more military advisors to Iraq to fight ISIS. Special forces are becoming more engaged in Syria and Iraq, which parallels America's involvement in Vietnam. It began with military advisors coming to a country supporting an unpopular government, despised by the majority of people. Russia, which has a significant investment in Syria wants the Assad government intact. It has been alleged that Russia is only bombing areas in which moderate opposition occupy. What the West refers to as moderate opposition is not moderate at all. They are groups that formed internally or externally and have been funded by the US, UK, and the Gulf monarchies. Turkey has even been accused by Russia of buy oil and financially supporting ISIS. It is no longer a secret that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have armed Sunni groups with the intent of overthrowing the Baathist government.Oman could possibly be the only Gulf monarchy that Syria has left as a friend. King Salman's aim is to wipe out the a competitor and undermine a much weakened Arab nationalist regime. Seeing as the Gulf monarchies fall into the Western orbit, this works in the favor of the Western powers. Four years this conflict has lasted and it could be the catalyst for an even larger conflict beyond the Middle East.
There are number of pivotal considerations that should be examined. The effects of the collapse of the Bashar Al-Assad presidency would reverberate through out the region. This would leave a power void in which extremism will take over. It should be assumed that Kurdish independence is on the horizon. The peshmerga has been doing much of the fighting against ISIS. It is incorrect to assume that the Kurds of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran would tolerate the status quo. They have been oppressed by Syrian, Iraqi, Turkish, and Iranian governments. Their demands will have to be met, before it becomes violent. If Bashar Al-Assad is to survive, he will become a regionally popular political figure. He will try to present this as a Syrian victory over invaders. Assad's government could possibly become more repressive after the war is over. Rebuilding after the damage will take an enormous amount of time. It is inevitable that there will be economic and environmental devastation, no matter who wins. The refugees will come in even larger numbers. Seeing as infrastructure has been destroyed, the country may not be livable for the majority of the population. European powers have to right to bomb Syria or Iraq. It was the invasion of Iraq that created a center for terrorism and now it is to the point of no return. The West will only induce more disorder. The only solution is to allow Assad to fight ISIS, while the pershmerga provides assistance. Iran has to be part of the strategy of decimating the terrorist organization.The Arab world must solve its own problems rather than looking to the West. It seems that a diplomatic solution would be more preferred than military force. It has to be understood that Bashar Al-Assad may remain president and for the time being, is providing a level of stability.
This crisis has now attracted the intervention of European powers. The UK has now began bombing targets. Germany is still deciding witch path to take. Russia has said that the best method to defeating ISIS is to support Assad. His army has been fighting both armed opposition and terrorist organizations. After the Paris attacks, France used the tragedy to advance an aggressive foreign policy.President Francois Hollande's foreign policy has become interventionist expanding missions to Syria, Mali, and the African Central Republic.France wants influence over its former colonies and continues to use military force to do so. This revived imperial conquest has been justified as a solution to the refugee crisis. The argument is that if Assad is removed and ISIS is dismantled by airstrikes the problem will end. This would exacerbate an already precarious situation.The increase of bombing causes more civilians to flee to Europe. Forming a no-fly zone will not be effective, because it is only partitioning the country by plane. The people who cannot flee are held hostage by ISIS in the territories they control. The only way to remove ISIS would be by ground invasion. This would not ensure success; it will only provide more motivation for resistance. It seems that their are two versions of imperialism competing for regional control. There is the US-EU block supporting armed groups or as it is phrased "moderate opposition" against Assad. Simultaneously, the United States has sent more military advisors to Iraq to fight ISIS. Special forces are becoming more engaged in Syria and Iraq, which parallels America's involvement in Vietnam. It began with military advisors coming to a country supporting an unpopular government, despised by the majority of people. Russia, which has a significant investment in Syria wants the Assad government intact. It has been alleged that Russia is only bombing areas in which moderate opposition occupy. What the West refers to as moderate opposition is not moderate at all. They are groups that formed internally or externally and have been funded by the US, UK, and the Gulf monarchies. Turkey has even been accused by Russia of buy oil and financially supporting ISIS. It is no longer a secret that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have armed Sunni groups with the intent of overthrowing the Baathist government.Oman could possibly be the only Gulf monarchy that Syria has left as a friend. King Salman's aim is to wipe out the a competitor and undermine a much weakened Arab nationalist regime. Seeing as the Gulf monarchies fall into the Western orbit, this works in the favor of the Western powers. Four years this conflict has lasted and it could be the catalyst for an even larger conflict beyond the Middle East.
There are number of pivotal considerations that should be examined. The effects of the collapse of the Bashar Al-Assad presidency would reverberate through out the region. This would leave a power void in which extremism will take over. It should be assumed that Kurdish independence is on the horizon. The peshmerga has been doing much of the fighting against ISIS. It is incorrect to assume that the Kurds of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran would tolerate the status quo. They have been oppressed by Syrian, Iraqi, Turkish, and Iranian governments. Their demands will have to be met, before it becomes violent. If Bashar Al-Assad is to survive, he will become a regionally popular political figure. He will try to present this as a Syrian victory over invaders. Assad's government could possibly become more repressive after the war is over. Rebuilding after the damage will take an enormous amount of time. It is inevitable that there will be economic and environmental devastation, no matter who wins. The refugees will come in even larger numbers. Seeing as infrastructure has been destroyed, the country may not be livable for the majority of the population. European powers have to right to bomb Syria or Iraq. It was the invasion of Iraq that created a center for terrorism and now it is to the point of no return. The West will only induce more disorder. The only solution is to allow Assad to fight ISIS, while the pershmerga provides assistance. Iran has to be part of the strategy of decimating the terrorist organization.The Arab world must solve its own problems rather than looking to the West. It seems that a diplomatic solution would be more preferred than military force. It has to be understood that Bashar Al-Assad may remain president and for the time being, is providing a level of stability.
References
"Bashar Al-Assad." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, 8 Dec. 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2015. <http://www.biography.com/people/bashar-al-assad-20878575>.
Dorsey, James. "Are President Assad’s Reforms Too Little Too Late?" Al Arabiya News. N.p., 17 Apr. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2015. <https://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/04/17/145753.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment