The Arab Spring of yesteryears sweeping across the Middle East (ME) made its first stop in Syria not because of the alacrity of the ruling regime of President Bashar al-Assad to reform the system but because of Russia’s support to endure the demand of reforms. This is how the spate of change that engulfed Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya got halted in Syria.
In this month, two events have invited the attention of the world to Syria.
First: the use of a gas (Sarin or Chlorine) attack in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4 consuming more than 70 lives.
Second: the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles from two warships in the Mediterranean to damage Syria’s Shayrat air base in Homs province on April 6. Both events have their own implications.
The use of a gas attack on a small scale probably through a rocket, whether used by the Assad regime or the rebels, indicates two points.
First, be in whatever form, chemical weapons exist in Syria, and so is the will to use them. This point makes Syria different from Iraq where the search for chemical weapons ended in vain in 2003.
Second, Islam as a religion of peace has done little to temper the brutality of Arabs. This point renders the ME notorious for its ruthlessness to exterminate fellow Arabs, whether or not they are co-religionists, to achieve political aims.
Same story, different day
The history of importing chemicals and making chemical bombs is also new to the ME. Saddam Hussain’s Iraq was disreputable for throwing chemical bombs on its own population such as Kurds (on the Kurdish city of Halabja in March 1988 killing thousands, for example) to quell any impending rebellion. Saddam’s failure to account for the imported canisters of chemicals led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in search of chemical weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Syria’s having the same weapon is fashioning the next episode for the same sort of search.
On April 6, the launching of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to damage Syria’s Shayrat air base in retaliation to the chemical attack also indicates two points.
First: newly elected US President Donald Trump is determined to impose the red line – punishment for using chemical weapons – on Syria, pronounced in August 2012 by former US President Barack Obama but not enforced subsequently.
Second: for its survival, the Assad regime is bound to count on Russia more than ever before. With that, the chances for US-Russia tension are bound to intensify. No doubt, on April 12, by vetoing the eighth UNSC Resolution on Syria since 2011, Russia protected the Assad regime from condemnation and investigation, the risk of combing Syria for WMD is not over yet.
The Arab psyche is marked – with good reason
Years of subjugation, initially under the Ottoman Turks – followed by Franco-British colonialism and then the US influence – have left a deep mark on the psyche of Arabs. The long spell of passivity has permitted the Arab rulers to study keenly the mutual rivalry of big powers of the world and contrive ways to exploit the same to their benefit. On the other hand, the policies of the big powers remained marred with real-politik by watching one’s oil interests in the region and overlooking an Arab regime’s political behavior.
In the twentieth century, two years stand out in the history of the ME. First, 1916 when power shifted hands. That is, the Ottoman Empire ended and European imperialism (represented by Britain and France) began its reign over the ME after signing the Sykes-Picot agreement, named after Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot, the British and French diplomats. The agreement not only created the borders of modern states such as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon but also divided the ME into British and French areas of influence. Second, 1956 when the US replaced the monopoly of both British and French by actively resolving the Suez Canal crisis and consequently becoming a force in the ME to reckon with. At the end of the Second World War, when the newly decolonized countries were opting for espousing democracy, the ME chose for persisting with monarchy, an improved version of tribalism. Under this status, the antiquated traditions of brutality and suppression expressed through throwing chemical bombs on citizens suspected with any form of revolt remained veiled.
During the Cold War (1949-1989), the former Soviet Union became able to win over certain countries of the ME to its side such as Iraq and Syria whereas Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt (after 1973) sided with the US. In the brutal punishment of Iraq during the Iraq-Kuwait war (1990-91) especially on the Highway of Death in 1991 and later on in search of WMD in 2003, the pro-Soviet past of Iraq did matter. At that time, the decrepit status of Russia dissuaded it from succoring Iraq. Nevertheless, when the Arab Spring of December 2010 knocked at the door of Syria in March 2011, Syria also became fearful of its pro-Soviet past.
Both stints of former US President Barack Obama (2009-2016) remained punctuated with the word “withdrawal” from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – subsumed together under the Greater Middle East – initiated by his predecessor, George W Bush. Obama is still discredited for not enforcing the red line (announced in 2012) against the Assad regime on the use of chemical weapons. Consequently, in August 2013, the Assad regime launched a chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta in the suburbs of Damascus. When Obama sought the approval of Congress to launch a retaliatory military action against the Assad regime, Russia came to Assad’s rescue by offering a proposal for giving up control of Syria’s chemical weapons to Russia. In fact, Russia offered a guarantee on behalf of Syria. This development, which took place in September 2013, prevented Obama from launching the proposed military attack and offered Russia a chance to enter into the US-Syria equation. Having encouraged by the entry of Russia, Syria formally requested Russia in September 2015 to come to its support. Consequently, Russia sent its military to Syria to help survive the Assad regime.
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them
Compared to the past, when Russia was apologetic on behalf of the Assad regime, Russia is assertive this time and has made counter allegations on the US for conspiring against the Assad regime. Here, Russia is overlooking two points. First, Russia’s entry into Syria has halted the reform process in the ME especially in Syria. Second, Russia’s efforts to pronounce the innocence of the Assad’s regime related to any chemical attack is replete with making Russia lose moral high ground internationally. The abstinence of China from vetoing the same UNSC Resolution on April 12, contrary to its past practices, is the first sign of that.
In the evolving situation of Syria, for the US, the matter is of survival in the ME since 1956, whereas for Russia the matter is of revival of its status in the eyes of its allies in the ME. However, the benefit of any US-Russia tussle in Syria is bound to sway in favour of the ISIS (or the Daesh) in terms of increasing the length of the Daesh’s grip on the land claimed by it for the Caliphate, recruiting more people and consolidating its hold on the area occupied. The Daesh offers its own set of challenges to the Assad regime.
