FAREWELL TO SYRIA
All efforts toward a
solution to the SYRIAN crisis must acknowledge that the SYRIA of 2010, a
sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders, no longer exists. The
drive of some in the international community to turn the clock back and
stabilize the “old” SYRIA under a new government has no political or strategic
viability.
Any strategy formulated
with the goal of stopping the civil war in SYRIA and shaping its future must
have a clear starting assumption: the collapsed, divided SYRIA cannot be pieced
together. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on identifying practical
alternatives to the SYRIAN state and formulate a viable basic plan acceptable
to the leaders in the regional and global systems.
MOVE TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK AND STABILIZE THE “OLD” SYRIA UNDER A NEW GOVERNMENT HAS NO POLITICAL OR STRATEGIC VIABILITY
Persistent warfare in SYRIA
means more bloodshed, refugees, and terrorism, and a greater threat of the
radical SUNNI camp seizing full control of the entire SYRIAN territory. By
contrast, a coordinated and orderly settlement aimed at a separation of forces
between the SUNNI majority and the minorities living on SYRIAN soil, carried
out with international backing and leadership has the highest potential for
stability.
The civil war in SYRIA is
at the top of the global agenda for two primary reasons. The first is related
to RUSSIA’S military presence in the country, which until a few weeks ago was
marginal and of a low profile, and became substantial once RUSSIA dispatched
dozens of fighter jets and helicopters, hundreds of soldiers, and a defense
system for deployment on SYRIAN soil. RUSSIAN President VLADIMIR PUTIN has
openly stated that the move has three objectives:
·
to help the ASSAD regime survive,
·
to attack the ISLAMIC STATE,
·
and to eliminate RUSSIAN ISLAMIC radicals
fighting in the ranks of the ISLAMIC State.
The second reason is
related to the massive influx of refugees into EUROPE a phenomenon forcing EUROPEAN
leaders to stop turning a blind eye to the longstanding civil war.
Although restoring
stability to SYRIA is an urgent interest of all parties involved, the response
of the leading nations in the international arena to the bloodbath in SYRIA
over the last four years has been limited to condemnations and efforts to avoid
direct involvement in events, even though it was clear from the outset that the
effects of the civil war could not be contained within SYRIA. The local
instability spills over to neighboring countries, with the refugees fleeing to
LEBANON, TURKEY, and JORDAN. Now EUROPE too is trying to cope with the masses
of SYRIAN refugees at its doorstep. This pressure will only mount, given the
huge number of SYRIAN civilians fleeing the war zones. Of the 10 million SYRIAN
refugees, about one third have left the country, and current estimates are that
some 70,000-100,000 refugees flee SYRIA every month.
WEST
CONTINUES TO PURSUE IDEAS LACKING VIABILITY
In face of RUSSIA’S
strong presence in SYRIA, attempts are now underway to formulate a solution
acceptable to all the large powers. Reuters, citing US Secretary of State JOHN
KERRY, reported (September 29, 2015) that the UNITED STATES and RUSSIA had
formulated fundamental principles on the future of SYRIA, and that MOSCOW and WASHINGTON
agreed that SYRIA must remain united, secular, and at war with the ISLAMIC
STATE. The report also cited White House sources saying that the option of ASSAD
continuing to rule was not practical. It seems that the West continues to
pursue ideas lacking viability.
All efforts toward a
solution to the SYRIAN crisis must acknowledge that the SYRIA of 2010, a
sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders, no longer exists. A
sovereign state with an effective central government will not be established in
the area recognized as SYRIA any time soon. The drive of some in the
international community to turn the clock back and stabilize the “old” SYRIA
under a new government has no political or strategic feasibility. Any strategy
formulated with the goal of stopping the civil war in SYRIA and shaping its
future must have a clear starting assumption: the collapsed, divided SYRIA
cannot be pieced together. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on identifying
practical alternatives to the SYRIAN state and formulate a viable basic plan
acceptable to the leaders in the regional and global systems.
BEWARE
OF A SYKES-PICOT 0.2 AND REMEMBER THE 15 YEARS CIVIL WAR IN LEBANON
In the course of the
civil war, SYRIA was de facto divided into zones of control, primarily along
demographic lines. The internal flow of refugees and residents has streamed
toward ethnic and religious centers where civilians feel safe. Although
interests within the ethnic groups do not converge entirely, in practice there
is a clear division into relatively homogeneous demographic spheres. Under
these circumstances, it seems that a de jure division of SYRIA into several
ethno-religious state entities is the most natural move – not least because
this has a real chance of helping stabilize the arena and stop the war.
Background
Information:
SYRIA’S
CIVIL WAR COULD LAST ABOUT AS LONG AS DID THE LEBANON WAR, NAMELY 15 YEARS
The SUNNI majority
controls – and will continue to control – most of the SYRIAN territory. At the
same time, the safety of minority groups will be ensured by international and
regional guarantees. The land of SYRIA is home to three large minority groups
in clearly distinguishable areas: the ALAWITES in the West, along the coast;
the DRUZE, mostly in the DRUZE mountains north of JORDAN; and the KURDS in the
north on the TURKISH border. A framework for a settlement in SYRIA must be
based on ensuring the existence of these communities in state entities of their
own. Adopting the framework would also serve as leverage in confronting the ISLAMIC
STATE and other radical ISLAMIST organizations.
ASSAD’S role in any
future settlement is the bone of contention between RUSSIA and the WEST. The WEST
insists on ASSAD stepping down, whereas RUSSIA sees him as someone who would
support its interests in the region. ASSAD’S continued control of only the ALAWITE
area would presumably temper the WEST’S opposition to him while also allow RUSSIA
to maintain its interests on the coast (TARTUS and LATAKIA) and continue the
war against the ISLAMIC STATE. Indeed, for RUSSIA and IRAN, continued warfare
and further involvement endangers their strongholds in SYRIA, and their
interests are better served through their ties with the ALAWITE entity.
Despite the widespread
international consternation at the thought of SYRIA’S collapse and division
into several state entities, it is also possible that the entities would
(though not necessarily) have a federal or confederate structure. The proposed
settlement helps reduce friction between the groups, ease the threat of ongoing
civil war, and provide protection to the minorities against radical ISLAMIST forces,
including the ISLAMIC STATE. Another result of stabilizing the arena in this
manner would be an end to the negative effects of the war in SYRIA on
neighboring countries, including extreme ISLAMIST radicalization in the region,
particularly in JORDAN and LEBANON.
The proposed arrangement
has roots in SYRIAN history. During its mandatory rule of the LEVANT, FRANCE
envisioned five semi-state units for the territory of SYRIA that could form a
future sovereign state. The DRUZE and ALAWITE autonomous regions were based on
an ethnic demographic factor. Four of the five units were created in September
1920. The JABAL AL-DRUZE (DRUZE Mountain) State was created two years later.
The CHRISTIAN area subsequently became LEBANON, and the TURKISH minority in the
ISKENDERUN region was annexed by TURKEY in 1939. The original FRENCH principle
linked the state structure to the desire to protect the minorities.
Background Information:
SYKES – PICOT AGREEMENT - MANY ARGUE, IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE
MIDDLE EASTERN CRISIS IN THE FIRST PLACE
The BRITISH diplomat MARK SYKES and a FRENCH counterpart FRANCOIS
GEORGES PICOT divided the MIDDLE EAST into zones of influence that later served
as the frontiers of independent ARAB states.
Worthwhile to mention is that the SYKES – PICOT agreement
created the versatile situation in the MIDDLE EAST in the first place. Promising both, JEWS and ARABS the same land,
dividing the region into areas of strategic interests for both, the BRITISH and
FRENCH mandate, without consideration of the ethnic and sectarian diversity the
region is exposed too. Instead of taking a precautious as well as diplomatic
approach, SYKES and PICOT, in their ignorance, did exactly the opposite.
Subsequently the MIDDLE EASTERN problem was created.
In late 2013, the SYRIAN
KURDS announced the establishment of an autonomous KURDISH province; they
published a draft constitution and called for parliamentary elections. Today,
the KURDISH fear – and the DRUZE fear as well – centers on the threat posed by
the ISLAMIC STATE and other extremist SUNNI organizations. The KURDISH national
project in SYRIA is linked to the KURDISH minority in both IRAQ and TURKEY, as
well as to the notion of constructing an independent national home in all of
greater KURDISTAN. Therefore, TURKEY’S consent to a settlement that would
include a KURDISH state entity on SYRIAN soil would be no small matter. It may
be that a clarification by the world powers that the KURDISH entity would not
be expanded beyond the SYRIAN border could help mitigate the expected TURKISH
opposition.
The national aspirations
of the DRUZE are apparently more modest than those of the KURDS. They are
mainly interested in survival per se. Given the situation, however, DRUZE
autonomy in southern SYRIA (of the type enjoyed during the FRENCH mandate,
which was withdrawn on the eve of SYRIA’S political independence) could be
welcomed by the DRUZE as part of the proposal. Regional and international
elements can likely be found to support such an entity because it would also
function as a barrier between JORDAN to the south and the radical SUNNI system
in central SYRIA.
As long as the principal actors in the international arena adhere to the futile notion of a secular state in SYRIA under a single central government, it will be impossible to advance any resolution. In fact, after four years of a horrendous civil war, with 250,000 dead, 10 million refugees, the destabilization of LEBANON and JORDAN, and the danger of military clashes between the superpowers in the skies over SYRIA, all sides have an incentive to change direction. Given the ongoing military stalemate, all sides may conclude that the division of SYRIA could allow them to preserve their basic interests and save them from continuing to pay the unbearable price they are currently paying.
As long as the principal actors in the international arena adhere to the futile notion of a secular state in SYRIA under a single central government, it will be impossible to advance any resolution. In fact, after four years of a horrendous civil war, with 250,000 dead, 10 million refugees, the destabilization of LEBANON and JORDAN, and the danger of military clashes between the superpowers in the skies over SYRIA, all sides have an incentive to change direction. Given the ongoing military stalemate, all sides may conclude that the division of SYRIA could allow them to preserve their basic interests and save them from continuing to pay the unbearable price they are currently paying.
Persistent warfare in SYRIA
means more bloodshed, refugees, and terrorism, and a greater threat of the
radical SUNNI camp seizing full control of the entire SYRIAN territory. By
contrast, a coordinated and orderly settlement aimed at a separation of forces
between the SUNNI majority and the minorities living on SYRIAN soil, carried
out with international backing and leadership, seems like the right solution,
as it has the highest potential for stability.
The SYKES-PICOT Agreement,
which divided the LEVANT into states almost one hundred years ago, was not
notable for its close adherence to demographic identities and rationales. The
time has come to depart from this heritage, at least in SYRIA. Reality has
already done so. Now it is the statesmen’s turn.
Adapted by Geopolitical
Analysis and Monitoring from the original article published in INSS Insight and
written by Gideon Sa'ar , Gabi Siboni
Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:
If however, the SYRIAN conflict is about gas and oil transit
from IRAQ, QATAR and IRAN to the MEDITERRANEAN, then above proposal will never have
the slightest chance to materialize. For more information read:
SYRIA: A STRATEGIC LOCATION FOR ENERGY TRANSIT ROUTES
REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA WOULD DIMINISH RUSSIA’S IMPORTANCE AS GAS
EXPORTER AS WELL AS NAVAL PRESENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA AGREE TO ESTABLISH ISLAMIC GAS PIPELINE - MON
25 JULY 2011
IS THE TRANS ARABIAN PIPELINE “TAPLINE” THE ANSWER TO THE WHY?
PIPELINE ROUTE LEADS THROUGH PRO IRANIAN SYRIA, THE GOLAN
HEIGHTS AND LEBANON, THUS A SAUDI FRIENDLY REGIME IS REQUIRED IN SYRIA IN ORDER
TO ACTIVATE THE PIPELINE
IT’S ALL ABOUT ENERGY DEALS
QATAR AT ODDS WITH RUSSIA OVER ITS STANCE ON SYRIA? OR IS IT
ABOUT DOMINATING THE GAS ENERGY MARKETS?
No comments:
Post a Comment