Anyone
with even an iota of conscience would condemn the Houla massacre of 25-26 May
2012. That 49 of the 108 killed were children is what makes that massacre
unbearably brutal and barbaric.
The
government of Syria has accused armed terrorists of committing the massacre. It
has provided a detailed account of what had happened. Eye witness testimonies
have been presented over state media.
The
armed opposition and its supporters within West Asia and in certain Western
capitals have put the blame upon the Syrian government. They allege that a
clandestine militia linked to the government --- the shabbiha--- had done most
of the butchering.
There
is no credible, independent entity that can help reveal the entire truth about
the Houla massacre. The United Nations Human Rights Council which has passed a
resolution condemning the massacre hastily targeted the Syrian government as
the culprit without waiting for reports from the UN-Arab League Observer
Mission in Syria. This is one of the reasons why China, Cuba and Russia voted
against the resolution. The Council has since the outbreak of the conflict in
Syria 14 months ago adopted an antagonistic attitude towards the government. In
all its submissions to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, it
has ignored or downplayed the views of the Syrian government.
While
we hope the truth about Houla would be known soon, our most urgent challenge is
to ensure that violence in Syria is brought to an end immediately. This is also the main aim of the Kofi Annan
Peace Plan. All the principal perpetrators of violence --- the government, the
armed opposition, and what has been described as the “third force”
comprising groups such as Al-Qaeda and
the Salafists--- must play their part.
The
Bashar Assad government and its armed forces should exercise maximum restraint
however severe the provocation from its armed opponents. There have been a
number of occasions when the State had used excessive force. Syria’s close
ally, Iran, Russia and China should also be firm in warning Bashar of the
danger of going beyond the limit in trying to maintain law and order. If it is
true Iran is channelling military assistance to the Bashar government, it
should cease to do so. By the same logic, Russia should suspend its arms sales
to Damascus.
At
the same time, the armed opposition should lay down its arms. A genuine
movement for freedom and democracy will not resort to violence in order to
achieve its goal--- especially when the government has undertaken some serious
reforms including the inauguration of a new Constitution which upholds
accountability, legitimises dissent and allows for political pluralism and
multi-party competition. The Constitution approved by the majority of the
people through a referendum held in February 2012 also sets a two term limit on
the presidency, establishes an independent judiciary, an autonomous commission
to combat corruption and recognises media freedom. A parliamentary election was
conducted in early May under the new Constitution.
Western governments such as
France, Britain and the United States who often parade the world stage as icons
of democracy should encourage both the armed and unarmed opposition with whom
they have intimate links to enter into a dialogue with the Bashar government on
the implementation of the Constitution.
This is fundamental for the success of the political process that the
Annan Peace Plan envisages.
Instead
of responding positively to some of the democratic changes introduced by the
government, the US has been coordinating the supply of weapons to the
opposition paid for by states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. An article in the
Washington Post (16 May 2012) reveals this, and admits that as a result of
large shipments of arms, the opposition “overran a government base” and “killed
23 Syrian soldiers” on 14 May. It is significant that this intensification of
weapons supply to the opposition had occurred after the ceasefire under the
Peace Plan had come into effect on 12 April. In fact, there has been a series
of horrifying acts of violence since the ceasefire --- devastating bomb attacks
in Aleppo and Damascus some associated with Al-Qaeda and Salafist elements---
aimed at creating chaos and anarchy. They offer incontrovertible proof that
certain governments in the West and in West Asia do not want the Peace Plan to
succeed.
Why
are they hell-bent on wrecking the Peace Plan?
They fear that if the Plan works, it would undermine their agenda which
is regime change in Damascus. It is
because these and certain other governments are set on regime change that the
earlier Arab League Observer Mission to Syria which exposed the lies fabricated
by the opposition about so-called government initiated violence was also
sabotaged. For the proponents of regime
change, the government has to be tarred and tarnished with whatever violence that
occurs as a way of destroying its legitimacy and convincing both domestic and
international public opinion that it should be ousted.
If there is so much obsession with regime
change it is because it serves the interests of different actors in different
ways. For Paris, London and Washington, the Bashar government is that critical
conduit that connects Iran to the Hezbollah in their common opposition to
Western dominance of the world’s most important geo-economic and geo-strategic
region. This triumvirate of resistance to Western hegemony has to be broken for
yet reason: to enhance the so-called security of its surrogate in West Asia,
namely, Israel. Israel in turn is implacably hostile to Bashar Assad mainly
because he continues to oppose Israel’s 45 year-old occupation of Syria’s Golan
Heights which incidentally supplies one-third of Israel’s water needs. Israel
has also been trying to exploit Golan’s oil and gas reserves. The Saudi and
Qatari elite, both Sunni, view Bashar as a Shia ( Allawites being a branch of
the Shia sect) leader allied to Shia Iran and since the Saudi elite in
particular abhors Shia identity and Iran’s growing power, there is no love lost
between them. Besides, both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are intimately linked to the
US and its other allies. Turkey is yet
another Washington ally and NATO
member, attempting to spread its influence in the region which now realises
that an anti-hegemony neighbour like Bashar’s Syria linked to a formidable
regional player like Iran can be a major obstacle to its ambition.
What
these regime change proponents who are all part of the Western hegemonic agenda
are not prepared to acknowledge is that any attempt to oust Bashar Assad
through external interference and military intervention will have horrendous
consequences for almost every state in West Asia and beyond. Syria itself will
plunge into a long and bloody civil war for Bashar retains the support of the
majority of his people especially in the populous cities of Damascus and
Aleppo. It is significant that unlike the coterie around Gaddafi not a single
major figure in government or the ruling party or the military or the
diplomatic corps has deserted him in spite of a concerted 14 month push to
dislodge him from power. Lebanon, a country with a deep umbilical cord to Syria---
always a tinderbox of inter-sectarian strife--- is already witnessing deadly
clashes between pro and anti- Bashar supporters. If Lebanon is in turmoil, it
will almost certainly have repercussions for Israel especially since the latter
is perceived as one of the root causes of the conflict in Syria. Jordan is
another neighbour with extensive people-to-people relations with Syria that
will not be able to insulate itself from a chaotic Syria.
Then
there are a number of states in the Arab world in which the Shia are either the
majority or the minority and a conflict which assumes a sectarian character is
bound to impact upon them. In the former category are countries such as Iraq
and Bahrain while in the latter category would be Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among
others. Iran and Turkey as regional actors who are
already involved directly or indirectly in the Syrian crisis will also feel the
effects of a worsening situation. So would Russia and China and Western powers
such as France, Britain and the US.
This
is why Kofi Annan has a monumental challenge before him. It is not enough to
ask Bashar Assad to do more to curb violence. Appealing to armed groups to
abide by the ceasefire of April 12 is only part of the solution. Annan should have the courage to demand that
the Western powers and various regional players cease to aid and abet groups
that resort to violence in Syria. He should tell them in no uncertain terms that
external political actors have no right to seek a regime change in Damascus.
That is the prerogative of the people of Syria--- a prerogative that they
should exercise through peaceful means.
Dr.
Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World
(JUST)
Malaysia.
4
June 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment