Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, is seemingly ready to do anything to stay in power. He still believes that he has “options” on the table that will save him. One of those being last Sunday’s constitutional referendum. In reality it was nothing short of a sham that fooled no one. Only the Russians cited it as a “movement toward democracy.” The referendum was described as a meaningless farce by opposition groups, Turkey, the US and European states.
The referendum followed the first meeting of the “Friends of Syria” group. It took place on Feb. 24, just a day after a UN report concluded the Assad regime was directly involved in gross human rights violations. The meeting brought together more than 70 countries and organizations just outside the Tunisian capital of Tunis. The point of the meeting was to discuss ways to exit the crisis and support the Syrian opposition. Finding a way to get aid to civilians caught up in the violence was high on the agenda. There were some different views. The Saudi’s supported the shipping of arms to the rebels in order “to protect themselves.” Qatar and Tunisia called for Arab countries to send troops. Neither were palatable options.
An “inner circle” or core group comprised of Egypt, the EU External Action Service, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UK and US, drafted a formal communiqué in the name of the coalition, which repeated the content of the vetoed draft UN resolution. It says that Assad should step down and hold elections under Arab League supervision. It also calls for worldwide economic and diplomatic sanctions. However, it does not endorse military intervention and it does not recognize the Syrian National Council (SNC), an opposition group, as Syria’s new government. Rather it calls it “a” representative of the anti-Assad movement.
The conference also called for an urgent cease-fire and the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to allow food and medicine to reach battle-hit areas in the west and north of the country. The response of the Assad regime was that the leadership “rejects and condemns all that was said and decided at the meeting of the enemies of Syria in Tunisia.” Furthermore, the regime noted that humanitarian corridors open up the possibility of having some sort of military presence, which could be problematic.
Meanwhile, earlier this week, the EU imposed yet another wave of sanctions against President Assad’s regime, while at the same time urged the country’s fragmented opposition forces to work more closely together. This included sanctions on Syria’s central bank and seven government ministers. It also signed off on a ban on cargo flights from Syrian airline carriers and on trade in gold, diamonds and some other precious metals. Will it make Assad more likely to step down? I very much doubt it.
Again Moscow aligned itself with Assad, snubbing the “Friends of Syria” meeting, saying that as it did not include representatives from the Syrian government it was a waste of time. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he believed the meeting did not help to “help create conditions that would encourage all Syrians to engage in political dialogue.” Rather the Russian Foreign Ministry made a new call for Europe, the US and the Arab region to join forces and bring together the Syrian opposition and representatives of Assad’s government without preconditions to help them agree on reforms.
Furthermore, while Russia supported last week’s appointment of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as a joint UN-Arab League envoy for the Syrian crisis, indicating they are ready to have full and active cooperation with him, at the same time Russia continues to sells arms to Syria’s leadership. Reuters shipping data show at least four cargo ships since December that have left the Black Sea port of Oktyabrsk -- used by Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport for arms shipments -- have headed for or reached the Syrian port of Tartus
Unfortunately it seems that no end to the Syrian crisis is in sight. While military intervention is not an option, so far diplomatic measures are also failing to deliver the desired results, particularly as a consequence of Russia being at odds with nearly everything the rest of the international community proposes. While the situation is looking increasingly desperate, intervention would be a disaster. With Annan now assigned to the problem, let us hope he can find a compromise that all parties can agree on.
