Syria: should the West be more proactive?

Introduction

The crisis in Syria is on-going and so is the debate about the West’s options to help end the bloodshed. Those in favour of a more pro-active policy are regularly confronted with a variety of arguments against intervention. Some of them are perfectly legitimate and rightly point at the potential risks of Western involvement. The validity of others, however, has to be questioned. In the following, four common myths will be addressed.

1) “Syria is primarily a humanitarian crisis”

The humanitarian crisis in Syria is heart-breaking. According to UN figures, 60,000 people have died since March 2011 and the actual number is likely to be much higher. Thousands are fleeing the violence across the border every day – 84,000 in December 2012 alone – bringing the total number of those displaced to around half a million.

However, as much as Syria is a humanitarian catastrophe, it is also a geo-political, strategic crisis.

Syria is not an isolated case like, for instance, Libya. It is central to holding together the Middle East, as it touches upon various, complex interests. Due to the sectarian nature of the conflict, the spill-over effects into other countries are severe.

Turkey is not only subject to repeated border violations but watches the mobilisation of Kurdish forces in northeast Syria with sheer horror. A sharp increase of terrorist attacks can be witness in Iraq with al-Qaeda exploiting the conflict to regain momentum. Baghdad, like Turkey, is equally concerned about the Kurdish factor. So far, the number of Kurds fleeing into Iraq has been relatively small but if they were to unite, they could shift the balance of power in the country and put pressure on the Turkish government.

Meanwhile, Iran is actively supporting the Assad regime and its proxy militia, Lebanese Shia terrorist group Hezbollah, is smuggling fighters and weapons into Syria. Syria’s Sunni population, in particular the Islamist fractions among the opposition, are propped up by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

As such, the brutal conflict is not only pushing Syria into the humanitarian abyss but is destabilising various other countries to a dangerous degree. It is a recipe for a long-term sectarian strife, destruction, and death across the entire region that will make post-war Iraq look simple.

2) “Syria is lost to Islamic extremists”

The Islamist fractions in Syria are powerful and their influence is steadily growing. Among the 13 Islamic extremist groups are al-Qaeda jihadists, such as Jabhat al-Nusra and the al-Tawheed Brigade, as well as Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers. In particular, the northern Syrian town of Aleppo has turned into one of their strongholds and in November 2012, they declared it an independent Islamic state.

The Islamists, however, were not the ones who triggered the revolution, though they profited immensely from it. How did they manage to hijack the cause?

On the one hand, the Islamic rebels are supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but even more importantly the moderates have been considerably weakened by the lack of outside support. As one Syrian man stated, he can understand why people turn to the extremists and shout “Allahu akbar”. “Who else has helped us?” he asks. “No one.”

While the post-Assad era is likely to be violent and chaotic, it is not too late to fix some of the damage caused.

Western help can counteract the rise of extremist ideologies. The US-led intervention in Kosovo has pushed back the spread of such ideologies, which are likely to emerge in situations of war and despair, and effectively manifested pro-Western attitudes among the predominantly Muslim population.

Assad has not fallen yet and there is still opportunity to influence, at least to a certain extent, the direction the country will take. When the time for making decisions comes, there is a strong argument for the West’s need to be in that room, rather than outside.

3) “Assad is the guardian of minorities”

A common argument in favour of Assad’s reign is that Syria’s religious minorities have so far enjoyed relative freedom and protection in the country.

It is true that most Christians and Alawites stick with Assad, an autocratic, but secular leader as they fear revenge attacks and religious oppression. They are not giving the Syrian opposition the benefit of the doubt, after what happened in Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon.

A Christian man from Syria expressed the dilemma vividly: “If the regime goes, you can forget about Christians in Syria. […] Look what happened to the Christians of Iraq. They had to flee everywhere, while most of the churches were attacked and bombed.”

In contrast, another ethnic minority has long suffered oppression under Assad and his predecessors. The Kurds are the second largest minority in Syria and were among the first to rise up against Assad in 2004. Since then, they have engaged in anti-Assad protests and many have joined the Free Syrian Army. Nevertheless, there is also doubt among the Kurdish people about their perspectives under a new regime: “Maybe things will be worse for us.”

However, Assad is not the only source of stability and security available to Syria’s Kurds, Christians and Alawites, Druze and Ismaelites. The Syrian Support Group has developed a detailed transitional-justice plan with considerable security-guarantees to stem the danger of post-Assad sectarian violence and lawlessness in rural regions.

As a part of the plan, the Syrian opposition wants to employ carrots and sticks, like partial or full amnesty, to motivate former Assad officials to defect and initiate the process of his fall. Moreover, safe-passage will be guaranteed to Alawites who are not in Assad’s inner circle. In addition, there will also be a fund to compensate war victims and their families.

The plan was developed by a London-based legal firm called McCue & Partners, which is advising the Syrian Support Group. Hopes are that the plan will gain international support at the next Friends of Syria meeting in Italy. Washington Post journalist David Ignatius even went so far as to call the plan “the best idea advanced so far by the Syrian rebels”.

4) “There are no effective military strategies available”

“There is nothing we can do” has become the favourite mantra of the opponents of potential military intervention in Syria. The truth is that we have various options at our disposal, short of a full-scale invasion.

Firstly, we should consider arming the moderate fractions among the opposition. While such undertaking is not without risk, it is indefensible that right now everyone is receiving support but the people that are Syria’s only hope for a brighter future.

Secondly, the Patriots stationed along the Turkish-Syrian border provide us with a unique opportunity to establish a partial No-Fly-Zone. Given that Assad is increasingly killing from the air, the casualty number could be significantly reduced. Once such a zone is created and upheld, humanitarian corridors to address the civilian suffering could be established.

Contrary to what opponents of military intervention claim, Assad’s army is not nearly as strong as perceived and his capabilities greatly exaggerated. Syria’s military forces are better equipped than those of Libya under Gaddafi but the average standard of military efficiency in the Middle East, is relatively low, especially in countries where most weaponry consists of outdated Soviet-era purchases. The number of ground troops are not higher than 100,000, the navy fleet is limited in scope, the air force lacks regular maintenance and Assad has failed to get hold of 60% of his ill-trained reserves.

Thirdly, Syria is not Iraq. Not even the strongest supporters of military intervention, like Republican Senator John McCain, suggest putting boots on the ground. Furthermore, in the case of Iraq a relatively small group of defected intellectuals called for military intervention but in Syria, the animosity against the West is growing precisely because of a lack of action.

Syria, like Libya, has never been a traditional ally of us. But as a Gallup poll in the post-Gaddafi era has shown, Libyans now like Americans more than Canada and several European countries. Maybe it is time to see the revolution in Syria not only as a threat, which it clearly is, but also as an opportunity. But to turn the uprising into something more positive, it is not enough to remain on the side-line and watch as the chaos unfolds.

The “Blood for Oil” Conspiracy is Dead

When the US-led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, one of the most common perceptions was that the primary motive behind the war was the country’s significant oil reserves.

According to a 2002 Pew Poll, 44 per cent British, 75 per cent French, 54 per cent Germans, and 76 per cent Russians were greatly suspicious of US intentions in Iraq and bought into the “blood for oil” narrative. On the contrary, only 22 per cent of Americans believed that the Bush administration’s policy was driven by oil interests.

At the time, experts pointed out that this argument was deeply flawed and a lazy mantra of the war opponents.

While Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, its output in the early 2000s was modest and accounted for only 3 per cent of total global productivity. Due to the geology of the oilfields and, above all, the poor infrastructure destroyed by years of war, Saddam’s negligence, and the sanctions regime, Iraq had the lowest yield of any major producer, amounting to just 0.8 per cent of its potential output.

The Economist cited a joint study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute of Rice University, concluding that

it would take nearly a decade and up to $40 billion to revive Iraq’s oil sector. That could lift Iraqi output to 4.2m-6m barrels per day, up from around 2.5m bpd today. However, it would still fall far short of Saudi Arabia’s whopping output of over 8m bpd today.

By the end of 2011, the US had spent almost $802bn on funding the war and, as the Centre for Strategic and International Studies pointed out, Iraq had additional debts of over $100 billion.

On top of that, the US only imports 12.9 per cent of its oil from the Middle East. The vast majority, 8.1 per cent, is provided by Saudi Arabia.

In other words, invading Iraq was an extremely expensive undertaking for the US-led coalition with no guarantee or prospect of considerable profitability.

As Daniel Yergin argued at the time: “no US administration would launch so momentous a campaign just to facilitate a handful of oil development contracts and a moderate increase in supply-half a decade from now.”

The “blood for oil” thesis, at best, represents a small proportion of the truth.

10 years after the invasion of Iraq, who is profiting most from the country’s oil reserves? The US? The UK? No. PetroChina, Russian Lukoil, and Pakistan Petroleum – fierce opponents of the war.

On the other hand, as Germany’s leading weekly news magazine DER SPIEGEL reported this week, “America has not a single, significant oil deal with Baghdad” anymore.

EXXON is moving out of Iraq and PetroChina has taken the lead in the auction of West Qurna – one of the largest oil fields in the world – with Russian Lukoil as a potential competitor. If the Chinese bid is successful, the country will account for 32 per cent of total oil contracts in Iraq.

The “blood for oil” conspiracists owe President Bush an apology.

RtoP – Why Intervention has taken place in Libya but not in Syria

The tidal wave of protests that swept across the Middle East and North Africa erupted in Tunisia on December 17^th, 2010.  Ever since, governments in four countries have been forced to step down and the struggle continues in many parts of the region, expressing itself in different levels of intensity. While revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and the Yemen ended relatively quickly, protests in Libya and Syria turned out to be extremely bloody and persisting.

In Libya, inspired by the ousting of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, violence broke out in February 2011. Only weeks later, a similar situation occurred in Syria. When people went onto the streets to protest for greater freedoms and against government corruption, nepotism and oppression, their demands were met with maximum brutality by the Gaddafi and Assad regimes. Security forces randomly fired into crowds and the army deployed heavy weaponry, including tanks and helicopters, to crush down the rebellion.

In both cases, the international community and regional actors strongly condemned the assaults and spoke of crimes against humanity. They repeatedly reminded the governments in Tripoli and Damascus of their responsibility to protect their own citizens from severe harm. The pleas to curb violence, however, fell on deaf ears.

The international community ultimately took matters into their own hands when NATO enforced a no-fly zone over Libya and supported rebels in their struggle against the army. Given the explicit reference to the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in the respective United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR), Libya was perceived by many as the protocol’s finest hour. Despite a similar normative dialogue encompassing the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria, the international community has so far failed to effectively intervene.

The puzzle that arises is why RtoP was invoked in Libya but not in Syria, despite the striking similarities of systematic human rights violations. Crimes against humanity are committed on a large-scale basis, sanctions have failed, international and regional players have condemned the violence and expelled both countries from their circles and the opposition has asked openly for intervention in form of a no-fly zone and safe havens.

If we are really witnessing the emergence of a global agenda committed to prevent and stop mass-slaughter by challenging the absolute nature of state sovereignty and framing sovereignty as a responsibility of the state to safeguard the well-being of its citizens, why has action been taken in one but not the other case?

The different outcome in Libya and Syria cannot be explained with RtoP and that the protocol does not coincide with the practice of foreign policy. RtoP makes intervention sound apolitical, yet it is a fundamentally political act. It requires a state or coalition of states to identify the victims and perpetrators of a crime. It calls on the international community to protect one group of people from another and by that it touches upon vital interests of major powers. Only if it does not undermine national interests, in particular those of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), RtoP works relatively smoothly.

If we accept that line of reasoning, we can account for the deviation. While in Libya, the political, strategic and economic considerations pointed in favour of intervention, in the case of Syria, vital national interests of major powers would be compromised by the fall of the Assad regime. This is especially true for Russia.

One could of course argue that RtoP is indeed the reason why action has only been taken in Libya. Some scholars have claimed that by overstepping its mandate, NATO has caused long-term damage to the agenda. This explanation, however, does not tell the whole story. This is related to the question of sanctioned legal authority. For example, Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed any resolutions in the UNSC that would have paved the way towards military intervention. It, however, does not falsify but reinforces my point. A lack of legitimacy from the UNSC might pose a dilemma but it is not an ultimate obstacle to act. In the past, states have acted in favour of military intervention, despite a disputed mandate, as for instance in the case of Iraq, and even in the absence of one, when they took action against Milosevic in the Balkans. Countries tend to find a way around the UNSC, if required.

To return to the central argument, it can be demonstrated that although RtoP is an integral part of the decision-making process, it is not the single factor which determines foreign policy in favour of intervention or inaction. The importance of vital political, strategic and economic interests by major powers explains the discrepancy between the Libyan and Syrian crisis, despite the otherwise striking analogies between the two scenarios.

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

RtoP was written in the early years of the new millennium, by the United Nations’ International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) under the leadership of Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun, and formally integrated into the UN’s framework in 2005 through the passing of UNSCR 1674.

The protocol has deep roots in reality, as it was a reaction to the bloody, conflict-stricken 1990s where severe breaches of human rights and genocide occurred. What immediately comes to mind is the failed intervention in Somalia with disastrous, long-term consequences for humanitarian policy; or the fastest killing-spree of modern times, the Rwandan genocide, which produced almost 1 million dead in less than four months; or Milosevic’s merciless rape and ethnic cleansing of the Balkans for much of the 1990s; let alone other atrocities that took place across the globe from Iraq to East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect is therefore prevention.  It is not only supposed to stop and react to genocide and crimes against humanity, but ideally avert them before they occur. RtoP is not a military protocol but one that works first and foremost with diplomatic instruments. Humanitarian interventionism is, however, acceptable under extraordinary circumstances. To be warranted, citizens of a sovereign country must be subject to severe bodily and mental harm on a large-scale basis or be in danger of annihilation. The use of force is regulated by four precautionary principles: right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospect in combination with just cause and right authority.

While the primary responsibility rests with the state concerned, the international community has the obligation to step in, if the state in whose territory the assault takes place fails to act accordingly, either because it is incapable of or unwilling to do so. Under these circumstances, the UN’s principles of non-intervention and absolute state sovereignty yield to RtoP.

The idea of an apolitical humanitarianism may be a noble endeavour but is incompatible with the reality of international politics. There exists no purely altruistic interventionism, as national interests are always an integral part of the balance of power, blurring the lines between humanitarian motives and realpolitik. In fact, the heart of the protocol is inherently political, as it requires the international community to take sides. By protecting Libyan civilians, it automatically condemned the methods of the Gaddafi regime. And by helping the Syrian rebels to succeed in the quest for freedom, it would inevitably contribute to the downfall of Assad.

The protocol was also meant to impose strict rules, making it more difficult for regimes to oppose humanitarian acts under the UN banner. Those were particularly aimed at countries defined by Michael Ignatieff as the ‘chief strategic threat to the moral and political commitments of liberal democracies’. Russia and China present a profound challenge to the ideology of freedom and democracy, which are at the very core of our liberal societies. Regimes which are internally oppressive cannot be expected to act as the guardians of human rights on the outside. Their understanding of sovereignty is absolute, much alike to the UN’s pillar principles of non-intervention and absolute sovereignty; their resentment against intervention in another state’s affairs runs deep and they fiercely protect those principles through their veto powers in the UNSC.

Given that RtoP operates within that particular framework, it has become a victim of political and moral corruption by the permanent members of the UNSC. The different kind of voting behaviour in regard to Libya and Syria is a case in point and brutally exposes the selectiveness and profound weaknesses that are deeply entrenched in the structure of RtoP.

PROTECTING THE INNOCENT

RtoP requires the main purpose of any military intervention to be the protection of civilians from their government, which are unwilling or unable to secure the safety of their subjects. Unlike the Genocide Convention, the threshold for intervention under RtoP is much less rigorous. While genocide has not taken place in either Libya or Syria, crimes against humanity have undoubtedly been committed on a systematic and large-scale basis.

When violence broke out in Libya in February 2011, the regime in Tripoli used maximum force to suppress the rebellion. In a television broadcast, Gaddafi declared a policy of no mercy towards the rebels, characterised by murderous and genocidal rhetoric, threatening to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’. In Syria, the situation escalated shortly afterwards in mid-March. As in the case of Libya, the Assad administration initiated a brutal campaign against the protests. Unlike his counterpart in Tripoli, Assad employed a different argument. He tried to portray them as enemies of the state and terrorists to be defeated, as it would be the duty of any sovereign concerned for the safety of the state.

However, when more and more reports about massacres against civilians surfaced, it quickly became apparent that the regime in Damascus was involved in a one-sided mass-slaughter. One of the largest-scale atrocities took place near Homs, where the head of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) confirmed that at least 90 people had been killed by Assad’s forces, including 32 children. Recently, the numbers of reports of atrocities committed by opposition factions have increased. They must be a cause for concern and be condemned in the strongest possible terms.  Nevertheless, they are not so common as to represent Syria as a conflict between two equal forces.

The uprisings in both countries are deeply disturbing and the human cost is terrible. Any military intervention would easily satisfy the criteria of right intention and just cause. In June 2011, an official of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) estimated that between 10,000-15,000 Syrians had already lost their lives.  According to the interim Libyan health minister, the number was twice as high at the end of the conflict and 50,000 have been wounded. The casualty number in Syria has reached comparable levels and there appears to be no end to the bloodshed. So far 21,536 Syrians have lost their lives and another 276,000 have fled to neighbouring countries. Even if there is no certainty of the accuracy of the statistics, the total death toll and the number of wounded and displaced is undoubtedly horrendous.

EXHAUSTING THE REPERTOIRE OF PEACE

RtoP dictates that military, economic, political and diplomatic sanctions must have failed before the use of force is permissible, since it is to be regarded as an extraordinary measure and imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian wrongs. International and regional players have therefore tried at great length to explore and exploit all peaceful options.

On February 22^nd, 2011 the Arab League suspended Libya’s membership and on the same day, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) expressed ‘strong condemnation of the excessive use of force against civilians’. Less than a month later, on March 8^th, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) called for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over the country.

By the end of February, the UNSC had authorised UNSCR 1970. This was unanimously accepted, explicitly referred to RtoP and strongly condemned the severe human rights violations. As a consequence, an arms embargo, travel ban and asset seizure were imposed. Matters were referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which in June issued arrest warrants against key members of the Gaddafi family and regime. In accordance with regional and supranational institutions, the UN General Assembly suspended Libya’s membership and the European Union (EU) followed suit, announcing an arms embargo and other coercive measures.

While regional players initially embraced a rather passive policy towards Syrian, they eventually concluded, after months of bloodshed, that a tough line against Damascus was in order. Consequently, the Arab League expelled Syria from its circle on November 12^th and announced unprecedented political and economic sanctions. After Assad’s non-compliance with observes, dispatched by the Arab League, they formally entered a dialogue with the Syrian opposition. The GCC and OIC embraced the same policy and suspended Syria’s membership from their organisations, in February and August of 2012 respectively.

The EU announced similar sanctions against the regime in May 2011. Those became more inclusive throughout the conflict. In August 2011, the EU announced an arms embargo, asset seizure and travel bans, followed by an oil embargo in September.  Since the beginning of the crisis, 17 restrictive measures have been introduced.

Reacting appropriately to the violence in Syria tuned out to be a challenging task for the UN, as a result of the deep division in the UNSC. Western powers tried to push through tough sanctions against the government in Damascus but China and, in particular, Russia vehemently vetoed any such attempts. The only common ground was UNSCR 2043, proposed by Russia and unanimously accepted, which established a UN observer mission known as UNSMIS. 300 unarmed monitor were dispatched to Syria to assess the situation and supervise the implementation of the UN Special Envoy’s six-point proposal. But the mission turned out to be a colossal failure, with Kofi Annan resigning in deep frustration and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon concluding there was ‘little evidence’ the Assad regime was interested in the peace initiative.

It can be summarised that both Libya and Syria were subjects to substantial military, economic, political and military sanctions. The international community, as well as regional actors, have taken all necessary steps to satisfy the precautionary principle of last resort. In the case of Libya, consensus existed that the peaceful repertoire of the protocol had been exhausted and military intervention was the only way to secure the protection of civilians. In Syria, however, the killing has been going on for almost a year and the opposition, in line with Western and Arab governments, have repeatedly argued that now is the time to impose a no-fly zone.

RUSSIA AND CHINA VS THE WORLD

Libya appears to be a clear cut case for right authority under RtoP. UNSCR 1973 authorised NATO ‘to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack’. Although five countries abstained – Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany – the resolution was generally perceived as a great success for RtoP and precedence for future interventions.

The honeymoon, however, did not last long. Almost instantly, Russia and China criticised the West for misinterpreting the mandate and taking the mission further than authorised by the UN. They lamented that NATO was actively contributing to the fall of the regime, rather than protecting civilians only, as explicitly stated in the resolution. This narrative is now readily deployed by non-interventionist countries to justify their opposition to a firm resolution on Syria.

But this explanation must be regarded as a political smoke screen for justifying inaction. First, it appears to be straightforward that it would have been impossible to effectively ensure the safety of Libyan civilians without toppling Gaddafi, given his pledge to fight until the bitter end. This controversy at the heart of RtoP proves yet again how intimately related humanitarian and political goals can be. In reality, it becomes literally impossible to separate one from the other. Second, even if NATO had not overstepped the mark, Russian and China would have vetoed any intervention in Syria regardless to protect vital interests at stake.

Negotiations over a UNSCR against Syria turned out to be much more complex and ended in a political deadlock. This was due to the repeating boycott of Russia and China. Both made use of their veto power in the UNSC not once or twice but thrice. The first UNSCR of October 2011 was strong in language but proposed little concrete measures. It condemned the systematic violations of human rights but was hijacked by a double veto. The same happened again in February 2012, despite the council dropping references to economic sanctions and an arms embargo, let alone anything close to a no-fly zone. When the two permanent members excised their veto for a third time in July 2012, a group of countries, unwilling to accept Russia’s and China’s arbitrary behaviour, pushed for a gathering of the UN General Assembly to obtain, at least symbolically, a broad consensus against the brutality of the regime. Consequently, in August 2012, it overwhelmingly voted in favour of an Arab-drafted, anti-Syria resolution, condemning the UNSC’s inadequate response.

At first sight it would thus appear that while Libya satisfies RtoP’s criterion of right authority, Syria fails to fulfil this requirement. This conclusion is however over-simplistic and will be further explored.

THE TRIUMPH OF INTERESTS OVER THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED

The question remains why RtoP has been invoked in one case but not the other. Whilst theoretically, intervention in Syria should have already taken place, it does not reflect the reality on the ground. Because RtoP is not as apolitical as it pretends, the politics, which are an integral part of the balance of power, obstruct its realisation.

It is fair to argue that Gaddafi was relatively isolated with no real allies in the Arab and Western sphere, bordered by states such as Egypt and Tunisia, which were undergoing revolutions of their own. While as a consequence of the war in Iraq, the regime had attempted to re-integrate itself into the international community, Gaddafi was still perceived as the ‘mad dog’ (a name once given to him by former US Resident Ronald Reagan). Since states are more likely to intervene in the internal affairs of another country, if the state in question is perceived to be weak, so that the potential costs are calculable and containable, Gaddafi was an easy target.

If anything was on the mind of Russia and China, it was their general anti-Western foreign policy agenda and their tendency to stay out of other countries’ affairs. But given that large parts of the region were in turmoil and future trouble likely to occur, they concluded that now was not the right time to oppose the NATO-led coalition. A compromise on Libya could help to justify future opposition to operations in countries more vital to their national interests. Therefore, when UNSCR 1973 was passed, Russian and China abstained, alongside India, Brazil and Germany.

In the case of Syria, the situation is more complex. Especially Russia has a strong interest in the survival of the Assad regime, since essential economic and strategic considerations are at stake. The partnership between the two countries dates back to the 1950s and reached its peak in the 1980s and 1990s, when Russia supplied Syria with military equipment worth $26 billion, including missile systems, about 5,000 tanks, 1,200 aircraft, 4,200 artillery pieces and mortars 70 warships. As a result, 90% of Syrian military capabilities are from the Soviet era. Seven years ago, Russia agreed to cancel Syria’s debt of $9.8 billion from the Soviet era in exchange for a range of multi-million contracts, from trade and energy to arms and Russian investment in Syria is now worth almost $19.4 billion.

Furthermore, Russia’s only extra-territorial naval base is on Syrian soil and would be lost, after the fall of Assad and this would constitute a significant blow to Russian plans to strengthen its sea power in the Mediterranean.

However, Russian support cannot exclusively be explained by rational choices. It also has deep roots in the country’s pathological opposition to American policy. The consequences of Moscow’s irrational behaviour are profound and, eventually, Russia will find itself on the wrong side of the Arab Spring. The Syrian opposition has already made clear its opinion of Russia’s counter-productive policy and the Gulf States, in particular Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have also voiced their resentment.

Russia, however, is not the only problem that makes potential intervention in Syria risky. Assad is also one of the few remaining allies of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the past, Iran and Syria have cooperated closely in Lebanon where both had a firm grip on their proxy group, Hezbollah, and been united in their determination to exterminate arch-enemy Israel. Indeed, both Iran and Syria have repeatedly threatened to unleash Hezbollah on Israel, in the event of intervention. Iran, the only Shia state in the world, is further interested in keeping the Alawites, a sub-group of Shi’ism, in power, instead of having to deal with yet another Sunni dominated country.

The second key factor is the military capabilities of the respective countries. The Libyan army was considered to be weak and unorganised, unable to resist a NATO-led operation for long. The regime in Tripoli had run the same risks as the Shah of Iran once done. It had deliberately neglected the 50,000-member army and the military had no appropriate plans for responding to rebellions, since such plans were never allowed to be made, as the fear of an internal coup was too great. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that Russia supplied Gaddafi’s forces with the only weapons system which could have ‘pose[ed] a threat’ to NATO’s air campaign.

Assad’s army is stronger than that of Libya under Gaddafi, despite the Syrian opposition claiming that already 50,000 soldiers have defected, including high ranked officials. The average standard of military efficiency in the Middle East, however, is relatively low, especially in countries where most weaponry consists of outdated Soviet-era purchases. There is credible evidence, which suggests that Assad’s capabilities should not be overestimated, with estimated ground troops not higher than 100,000, a lack of regular maintenance in the air force, a navy limited in scope without aircraft carriers, destroyers or submarines and Assad’s failure to get hold of 60% of his ill-trained reserves.

The third point, namely the rebels’ unity or rather disunity, is a persisting source of concern. In Libya, the dissidents were already in control of a significant portion of the territory when NATO intervened. At the time, Gaddafi forces were still occupying the west of the country but the rebels had liberated large parts of the east, with Benghazi as their self-declared capital.

As a result, they were perceived to be in a position to provide Libya with some basic security and leadership during the transition period, until a proper election could take place. This was important, as that the aftermath of the revolution was a major concern for the international community, since many believed that extremists might exploit the power vacuum.

The opposition in Syria is much more heterogeneous. Many different ethnic groups live in Syria. In the early days of the rebellion, opposition was organised in ‘brigades’, delineated by religion or ethnicity. However, opposition leaders have identified lack of unity as a concern amongst Western powers and have tried to remedy this. Two of the main opposition camps, the Syrian National Council (SNC) and National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change (NCC), have merged. The NCC originally favoured political talks with the Assad regime, but abandoned its strategy after Assad’s methods of oppression became increasingly violent.

This development was not without results, as the Arab League had formally entered talks with the Transition Council and President Hollande has declared France to be ready to acknowledge the interim government once properly established. Opposition forces also made territorial gains and have a relatively firm grip over the northern parts of Syria.

This line of analysis has now become difficult to sustain. Although Syria is not without allies, the regime has become increasingly isolated over the past few months and the general consensus reflects Assad’s fall. In addition, while Syrian armed forces are more efficient than those of Libya, the assumption that NATO – the most powerful military alliance in the world – could not defeat an ordinary Middle Eastern army remains unconvincing. Though enforcing a no-fly zone would be more complex than it was in Libya, a lack of political will not military capacity has prevented intervention so far. The on-going struggle of the Syrian rebels for unity is a source of genuine concern to those who espouse RtoP. Nevertheless, there is credible evidence of slow but significant political progress.  Two of the main opposition groups have merged and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has agreed to sign a code of conduct, in an attempt to demonstrate their readiness to lead the country during the transition period in an orderly manner. These developments should be encouraged rather than disparaged.

LEGITIMATE BUT ILLEGAL?

There are two other critical considerations: the issues of legality and fear of chemical and biological weaponry. Is intervention in Syria delayed by an absence of sanctioned legal authority? This assumption is over-simplistic. RtoP itself contains a passage which addresses the problem:

The Security Council should take into account in all its deliberations that, if it fails to discharge its responsibility to protect in conscience-shocking situations crying out for action, concerned states may not rule out other means to meet the gravity and urgency of that situation – and that the stature and credibility of the United Nations may suffer thereby.

This freedom of action was endorsed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who recently lamented that inaction in Syria reminded him of the UN’s failure to protect civilians in Srebrenica.

Another option under RtoP is to refer the matter to the General Assembly in an Emergency Special Session. Action over Syria would not even create a UN precedent, since it is more than sixty years since the “Uniting for Peace” UNGA resolution was passed protecting Korea.

Moreover, if the UNSC were to be hijacked by the interests of a permanent member state, then the next best source of international legitimacy would be regional powers and organisations. As outlined before, regional, supranational institutions as well as sovereign states, in particular Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have openly lobbied for a no-fly zone and the establishment of safe havens for refugees.

States in the past have acted contrary to the rulings of the UNSC, as in Kosovo, which would determine the intervention to be illegal but morally justified. The invasion of Iraq occurred against the background of profound controversy over the legality of that action. What Iraq demonstrates is that a mixture of national interests together with humanitarian concerns can lead to states to circumvent the UNSC and evidence will be explored in great detail in the fourth chapter.

RED LINE: CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS                      

In 2003, Gaddafi had abandoned his repertoire of chemical and biological weapons, as part of a diplomatic realignment following the invasion of Iraq. During the 2011 Libyan revolution, this weakened the regime’s national and international position, given the deterrent effect of these weapons, and thereby encouraged intervention.

In Syria, regional and international players remain deeply concerned about the danger of Assad using chemical and biological weapons against the opposition and civilians, despite his claim that he would only deploy these in the event of foreign intervention. Another concern is that Assad could lose control over the weapon stockpiles, which could result in non-state actors, such as of Hezbollah or Islamic extremists group such as al Qaeda, acquiring these weapons. Given that the post-Assad period is likely to be extremely chaotic, this is a realistic scenario.

Indeed, the question of chemical and biological weapons is of such concern that it has recently become a potential catalyst, which could move Western powers to begin intervention. President Obama has declared the use of such weaponry as his ‘red line’, and President Hollande of France has similarly stated that it would be a legitimate justification for direct intervention.

This is a significant observation. In the eyes of the West, the incentive to intervene is currently not strong enough, despite the death toll being equivalent to Libya. But if the Syrian regime began using chemical or biological weapons as part of its campaign of repression, intervention would be politically justified.

The threshold for intervention in Libya appears to have been lower than it is now in the case of Syria.  The explanation for that is as follows: because due to the precedent set by Saddam’s Iraq in the 1980s, it is clear that the use of these weapons by Syria may represent a wider threat to the region as well as the international community and as such goes beyond the essentials of RtoP to embrace the concerns of national interests. Priority is not given to people’s right to be protected. If that were the case, intervention would already have taken place. Humanitarian motives might be an integral part of the decision-making process but they compete with the logic of realpolitik.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The puzzle circled around the question of why RtoP was invoked in Libya but not in Syria, despite RtoP’s precautionary principles for military intervention have been fulfilled.

In both countries, systematic human rights violations have been committed on a large-scale basis, sanctions have failed, international and regional players have condemned the mass-slaughter and expelled Libya and Syria from their circles and the opposition has lobbied for the enforcement of a no-fly zone and the establishment of safe havens. In theory, action in Syria should already have taken place.  So why has it not?

As demonstrated, this is the wrong question to ask. RtoP proposes an apolitical, idealised version of humanitarian interventionism and tries to remove international politics from a subject, which is itself highly political. What follows is that the answer lies not with the protocol per se but the political climate in which it exists. In the case of Libya, the costs for intervention were relatively low in comparison to potential risks, due to the unique factors relating to the Gaddafi regime and its role in the region and on the international stage. The national interest of intervening powers, in combination with the moral force of RtoP, ultimately triumphed over the principles of non-intervention.

In Syria, however, the incentive to intervene, despite the fulfilment of the respective criteria, is not enough to outweigh a complex matrix of domestic, regional and global considerations. Humanitarian concerns must give way to realpolitik. Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests in the region cross with concerns over the US presidential election, the European currency crisis and several other constraints, which make intervention in Syria less viable or attractive for major powers.

When the conflict escalates further and threatens to violate the US’ ‘red line’ policy, intervention in Syria becomes both more feasible and more likely. At present, however, it is extremely doubtful that a form of intervention will happen anytime soon, given the stated intention of President Obama that he has no ambition to get further involved in Syria, until the elections in November are over.

What could change the current policy of inaction would be an atrocity that would shake the consciousness of the world, such as a Srebrenica style massacre, or the use of chemical and biological weapons as experienced in Iraq.  Another possibility is that if the civil war in Syria crosses into neighbouring countries, this could trigger a regional intervention. Syria has already clashed with Turkey and Jordan, while the Kurds of Syria and Iraq are united against Assad.

Russia and China are unlikely to change their position, as this does not accord with their interests internationally and in the region. Intervention in the future could realistically only take the same form as the Iraq crisis, as national interests are perceived to outweigh the necessity to preserve international peace or respect the authority of the UN. Thus, intervention becomes a question of political will and national interests as opposed to a sense of a capacity for military action or a perception of the necessity to protect human rights.

For now, the bloodshed in Syria continues. Once more, the international community is in the process of learning the lesson it pretends to have learned many times in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russia’s Janus-faced Middle East policy

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia’s influence in the Middle East has been greatly undermined and its policy has changed in emphasis and intensity. While during the clash between the two superpowers – the US and the Soviet Union – the Middle East was part of its ideological battlefield, Russia nowadays often merely reacts to US policy in the region, after shrinking from a superpower to a middle power.

The post-Soviet era was marked by a struggle between the Russian Atlanticists and Eurasians. The former were in favour of a closer partnership with the West, in order to accelerate Russia’s democratic transformation. But the latter considered China, India and the Middle East as the country’s natural allies and rejected a more pro-Western policy, as it is the case up to the present.

After the September 11th, 2001 atrocities in the US, most Western countries offered their support and embraced a policy of counter-terrorism in the Middle East. Russia on the contrary, despite its rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and its problems with Chechnya, has been an obstacle rather than an asset in the fight against global Islamic extremism.

Russia’s policy in the Middle East is inconsistent and ambivalent. Firstly, Russia’s goal is to oppose, sabotage and boycott US foreign policy in the region, in order to counter American hegemony.  This is mostly achieved through diplomatic channels, as for instance by vetoing US resolutions in the UN Security Council, or through arms trades with rogue states, as in case of Iran and Iraq.

Secondly, Russia’s Middle East policy is strongly shaped by strategic calculations, especially in respect to Chechnya. Arguably, no other security concern influences Moscow’s terrorism and Middle East policy more than the situation on the northern Caucasus. Against this background, Russia sought membership in the Organisation of Islamic Conference and was successfully granted observer status. The idea behind it was to gain de facto immunity from criticism of Russian policy in Chechnya.

Thirdly, Russia is determined to profit from economic partnerships in the Middle East. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country no longer self-restrained itself in its arms sales to the region as long as financial arrangements were beneficial for the Russian defence industry.

Although Russia and the United States arguably have a common enemy in radical Islamism, the former nevertheless deliberately undermines the strategy of the latter. Further, although Putin deploys a zero-tolerance policy against Islamic extremism at home, he maintains close relationships, mostly because of political and economic considerations, with countries in the Middle East, which represent similar ideologies.

Russia’s Decline in the Middle East            

From the mid-1950s onwards to its dissolution in 1991, the Soviet Union played an essential part in providing the weaponry of many Arab states. Almost 90 per cent of military equipment in Syria and Libya was coming from the Soviet market. For the country, this was one way of protecting its influence in opposition to its rival, the US, and to help shaping Middle East policy in its own national, strategic interests.

But even during the Cold War, especially towards the end, the Soviet Union was not in a position to compete with the military and financial aid offered by the US. Many of the Arab states became increasingly aware of its domestic economic problems, and sided with the Americans, as for instance Egypt, which cut all ties with the Soviet Union in 1972, and instead turned on the US to enhance its military capabilities.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was a fatal blow. The country’s influence in the region significantly suffered and the newly emerging Russia found itself in a disastrous position.  Now incapable of proving the Arab states with large-scale arms sales, it lost almost all of its allies, except of Iran and Iraq, which were boycotted by the US and most Western countries for political reasons. But even these two countries escaped Russian influence more and more, as they were aware of Moscow’s desperate dependence on strategic and economic partnerships in the region and used it for their own advantages.

As a result, Russia’s policy in the Middle East changed from an offensive to a defensive one. Moscow is now primarily concerned with countering US hegemony, containing Islamic extremism on the northern Caucasus and enhancing the country’s influence through economic channels.

The Russian- Iranian Relationship

After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the hostage crisis, the US cut all ties with the Islamic Republic, which has become the leading anti-American force in the region. Up to the present day, the US has not opened an embassy on Iranian soil again.

Russia, on the other hand, has been a long and traditional partner for the Iranians. Since 1995, Russia has  also been Iran’s sole partner in the nuclear field and Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons, after India and China. Russia signed a deal with the Islamic Republic, worth $800 million, over the construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant, for which they sold reactors and turbines.

After it was revealed in 2002 that Iran runs a secret nuclear programme, the country has come under more and more scrutiny from the international community, in particular the US and its Western allies, as many question that Iran plans to use it for peaceful means only. This concern is fuelled by Ahmadinejad’s repeated threats against Israel and some of Iran’s Arab neighbours.

Several UNSCRs have already been issued against the Islamic Republic. UNSCR 1737 was passed in December 2006 and prohibited financial and technical assistance for “Iran’s enrichment, reprocessing, heavy water and ballistic missile programmes”. Four years later, the country was still in breach of previous resolutions and failed to cooperate with the IAEA inspectors. The Security Council imposed further sanctions on the regime and again called on Teheran to completely suspend its enrichment activities.

Despite supporting some of the diplomatic manoeuvres against Iran, Russia has not significantly altered or downgraded its relationship with Teheran and is arguably in breach of the international community’s sanctions against the Islamic Republic. For instance, Putin finally agreed in 2005 to provide the Bushehr plant with Russian nuclear fuel.

The reason for Russia to maintain close ties with Iran at such a high price are threefold . Firstly, Russia and Iran perceive US hegemony and Western influences as a common threat. Both were particular concerned by the Bush administration’s attempt to expand NATO’s sphere of influence on the Balkans and the Caucasus, areas of strategic importance for both Moscow and Teheran

Secondly, Russia is struggling to contain Islamic extremism at its backdoor, especially in Chechnya, which is why Moscow needs allies in the Islamic world. In return for supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Islamic Republic has, at least officially, refrained from actively supporting the Chechen rebel, as any Middle Eastern government which seeks Moscow’s support must either side with their struggle against Chechen separatists or, at a minimum, not protest.

Thirdly, Russia’s alliance with Iran has been highly beneficial and proves that Moscow is prepared to risk its relationship with the West, in particular the US, for economic reasons.

The Russian- Iraq Relationship

As with Iran, economic considerations and political opposition to the US guided Russian policy toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This became strongly apparent in the run up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. At the time, sanctions were crumbling and the no-fly zone over the northern and southern part of Iraq was no longer working. Furthermore, Saddam’s regime was able to smuggle prohibited items in and out of the country through its neighbouring borders.

Consequently, the US and its allies pushed for new and stronger sanctions in the UN Security Council, aimed at restoring the no fly zone over the Kurdish region and to seal off the borders to stop illegal trade. This however was strongly opposed by Russia. Moscow was the leading force in trying get sanctions lifted and Putin’s government threatened to veto any UNSCR of that kind.

As the UK’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, recalled “Russia had its own direct relationship with Iraq and was talking with Iraq probably more than any other country”.  He also stated that Iraq’s debt to Russia “was in many billions of dollars resulting from the Iran/Iraq war purchases” and the country “wanted sanctions to be lifted so they could get some of their money back”. At some point, the US and UK even discussed to pay parts of the $8 billion owed to Moscow to gain the country’s support.

Other economic reasons for Russia to oppose a stronger sanction regime and the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam offered them lucrative contracts in return and Moscow wanted to preserve the cashing-in from the UN’s oil-for-food-programme.

But the country also opposed the US-led policy towards Iraq for political considerations. The reasons given by Moscow were highly dubious. While on the one hand, Putin stated that he opposed the war in Iraq because of the strong opposition of Russia’s Muslim, he never displayed much concern about their opinion on Russian policy toward Chechnya.

Another piece of evidence which suggests that the Putin administration actively tried to wage public opinion against the US is that many of the 20,000 protesters, who went on the streets against the war, were given favours in return.

Russia’s relationship with Iraq is a further example of the country’s troubled Middle East policy and unlike in case of Iran, Moscow has not gained a lot from boycotting the toppling of the Baathist regime. In fact, it can be argued that Saddam, by offering Russia lucrative contracts in return to opposition to the US, influenced Russian policy as much as vice versa, which again is an indicator that Moscow’s Middle East policy is defensive rather than offensive.

Further, with Saddam gone, Russia has lost yet another ally in the region and Putin’s decision not to support the removal of Iran’s arch-enemy, also put Russia’s relationship with Teheran under strain.

Russia’s Janus-faced Middle East Policy

Especially on the issue of Islamic extremism, Moscow’s approach has been Janus-faced. While determined to brutally crushing down those movements at home and on the northern Caucasus, Putin’s administration at the same time maintains close ties with regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which represents a similar ideology.

Although Teheran has officially refrained from condemning Russia’s policy in Chechnya, Putin is playing with the devil and Iran continues support for organisations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It proves where Iran’s solidarity ultimately lies. Also, despite having been granted observer status in the Organisation of Islamic Conference, many Arab states are still publicly condemning Russia’s approach to Chechnya. Thus, in the short-term, Moscow maybe succeeds in containing the situation on the northern Caucasus with its purpose alliances in the Middle East, but in the long-term it will hardly solves the problem.

Moreover, even though Russia experienced a limited surge of influence when the US and allies where under severe pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia failed to sustainably increase its influence in the region, and consequently Moscow’s Middle East policy remains defensive rather than offensive. Additionally, Russia did not effectively boycott and sabotage decisive policy decisions of the US and its Western allies, as for instance in case of Iraq. Also, with Saddam’s regime gone, Iran under tremendous pressure from the international community and Assad, another ally of Russia, on the brink in Syria, the country has to expect further backlashes.

The only of the three objectives Russia fulfilled was to enhance its economic partnerships in the region. Especially its support for Iran’s nuclear programme has brought in a lot of money for Moscow. In recent years, in particular under Putin’s leadership, Russia has also successfully intensified economic relationships with Israel and other Arab countries, which were not traditional trading partners of Russia.

In sum, Russia has failed to make priorities in the Middle East and got caught up in many conflicts of interest and policy dilemmas. Instead of focusing on specific goals, Moscow has often pursued opportunistic ends, resulting in inconsistent and ambivalent decision-making processes.