As the ministers and diplomats from across the world gathered here over the weekend for a one-day conference with the humble title “Reform and Transitions to Democracy,” under the auspices of the United Nations, one single call resonated more than anything else. “I say again to President Assad of Syria: Stop the violence. Stop killing your people. The path of repression is a dead end,” said Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the UN.
As he uttered those words, news came from Damascus that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had issued general amnesty for “all crimes committed since March 15, 2011.” Not surprisingly, it did not cause a sigh of relief in and around the hall, only more caution. It was apparent that Damascus is the focal point of lost credibility.
‘There is no end to the tricks of the Ottoman, goes a Turkish proverb. Now that the empire is long gone, that label -- based on shrewdness -- applies to Syria, the birthplace of political manipulation.
What to make of Assad's new move? For those who are familiar with his father's antics, it is nothing more than a cynical tactic -- one used for centuries -- to buy time, to tarry in the diplomatic realm and to appease the weak, mainly Sunnite opposition.
The latter will not work. He has already been responsible from some 5,000 Syrian deaths, and the hatred he has sown will haunt him to the very end, even if it will take a long time.
The first part is important. Assad cunningly plays with time, because he wants to see a new ally consolidate himself in neighboring Iraq. That man is Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of Iraq. He is now emerging as the well-needed link between Damascus and Teheran, cementing fears that the fundamental tectonic shift due to take place will be on the Sunnite-Shiite divide, the line from Bahrain-Iraq-Syria, extending all the way up to Lebanon.
The growing gap in the sectarian domain makes Turkey's path to push for the unity of Iraq as well as for an end to massacres in Syria a very delicate path. It is coming close to a point, given the rise of the tensions, where Ankara may be forced to choose one of the two: focusing on the unity of Iraq or ending the massacres in Syria. It is rather obvious which one Turkey will choose.
The increased efforts of Turkey to stick to “friendly advice” to Tehran and Baghdad seem to echo in the void of the first and backfire in the latter. The latest harsh remarks by Maliki directed at Ankara confirm the fear that the friendly cooperation for stability in Iraq may hit a wall soon. “We did not expect the way they [Turkey] interfere in Iraq," Maliki said.
“We recently noticed their unexpected verbal mingling in our affairs as if Iraq is controlled or run by them [Turkey]. And we do not allow that. If it is acceptable to talk about our judicial authority, then we can talk about theirs, and if they talk about our disputes, we can talk about theirs." Maliki concluded, claiming that Turkey is playing a role that might bring disaster and civil war to the region, and that Turkey itself may suffer as a result. This was his response to Turkey's warning that the arrest order against Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi would not help the stability.
One can hear that they are certainly not Maliki's own words. He most likely had some “external encouragement.” Furthermore, it is no secret that the Iraqi prime minister is a paranoid person, known for his asocial nature; the least proper politician one could possibly chose to lead a process of unity and reconciliation. Soon enough we will surely see his name as synonymous with disaster.
He was America's worst choice as it pulled out of Iraq. That these personal features of Maliki would only spell trouble and turn him into a stumbling block was in very clear terms brought to the attention of US Vice President Joe Biden when he visited Ankara. It was a miscalculation by Washington -- based on orientalism -- that Iraq would be better off with an authoritarian leader, who has already started alienating all the crucial groups of his society.
Given the chance, Maliki will fill in as an ally linking Teheran with Damascus, to trigger across-the-border sectarian warfare between the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. He is right in one regard in the sense that it may drag in Turkey into this mess, which also makes Ankara the focal point of anxiety as its efforts appear as an attempt to swim against the tide.
Take for granted that Assad is very happy about it.
