It is disappointing that
Malaysia chose to support the UN General Assembly resolution on Syria on 15 May
2013. Even if we did not want to vote against it — which is what 12 governments
did, including Russia, China, Iran and Cuba — we could have at least abstained,
together with countries such as Indonesia, India, South Africa, Brazil and 55
other sovereign states.
There is no need to
reiterate that the resolution sponsored by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US and
France, among others, was terribly biased and one-sided. While it condemned the
Syrian government for its “increased use of heavy weapons”, its use of
“chemical weapons” and its “widespread and systematic gross violations of human
rights and fundamental freedoms,” the resolution had hardly anything to say
about the brutal violence of the militants fighting Bashar al-Assad or their
human rights abuses.
The UN resolution also
revealed its bias by recognising the Syrian National Coalition “as the
effective interlocutor needed for a political transition.” That the SNC is just
one of many groups in a highly fragmented opposition and commands very little
support within Syria itself is conveniently glossed over. Imposing the SNC upon
the Syrian people in this manner is a clumsy attempt to effect a regime change
of sorts.
More than the contents of
the resolution, Malaysia should have taken cognisance of certain critical
developments in Syria and the region in the last few months which should have
persuaded us to adopt a different stand. After all, a number of other UN member
states appear to have been influenced by these developments as reflected in the
voting pattern on the resolution.
One, the horrendous
violence perpetrated by the militants which has reached unspeakable
proportions. It is not just the massacres they have committed in residential
suburbs, markets, schools, universities and media centres that have shocked the
world. The cruelty and barbarity of their violence has been an even greater
shock. The video that has gone viral depicting a militant eating the liver of a
murdered Syrian army soldier is a case in point. Even on the question of
chemical weapons, it is the militants, according to UN investigator, Carla Del
Ponte, who had resorted to sarin nerve gas
attacks.
Two, it is now
acknowledged even by the UN-Arab League mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, that there
are thousands of Muslim foreign fighters in Syria. According to some sources,
they come from as many as 30 countries. Their involvement lends credence to the
view that radical militants are being sponsored and supported by foreign
governments and external agencies determined to oust the Bashar government by
force.
Three, in the last few
months it has become clear that a powerful hidden hand in the Syrian upheaval
is now openly aggressing against the Syrian state. This is Israel which has
conducted two bombing raids inside Syria. The direct involvement of the
US, France and Britain in undermining the Syrian government through
political and logistical support for the militants is also more obvious now
than it was a year ago. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey provide more massive
material assistance to the armed and unarmed opposition to Bashar than ever
before.
Four, it is because the
mortal threat to Syrian sovereignty from foreign fighters and foreign
aggressors and manipulators is so stark that President Bashar’s support among
his people has also increased significantly. Add to this the legitimate fear
that the majority of Syrians harbour about bigoted, often violent
interpretations of Islam which many of the militants from abroad subscribe to
and one can understand why the people are now rallying around their President.
This is a factor that anyone voting on the UN resolution should have also taken
into account.
The Syrian people’s
support for Bashar does not mean that the UN member states should ignore his
excessive use of force in the course of defending his state from the threats it
is facing. Neither should one downplay the tortures committed by his secret
police against protesters and dissidents. Nonetheless, they should be evaluated
in the context of the larger scenario that impacts upon Syria and the entire
region.
It is because a number of
UN member states were cognisant of the larger scenario that they chose NOT to
support the lopsided resolution of 15th May 2013. It is significant
that compared to August 2012 when 133 states voted for a similar resolution,
this time the figure had dropped to 107. The number of abstentions had also
increased substantially to 59, up from 31 nine months ago.
Malaysia should have made
it 60.
No comments:
Post a Comment