The Arab Spring...and Syria

Hey readers, how long's it been?

A week?? Goodness how lax of me to leave you so bereft of my thoughts for so long! No but seriously, I am sorry, I hope to update more regularly in future. Anyway, on with the show (blog.)

So yes I’m afraid we must delve once more into the realms of relative seriousness for a while, light hearted rants are on the horizon though so fear not, you will not have to endure such drudgery for long, but this is really something I need to write about. The Arab Spring, a glorious uprising of oppressed peoples across an entire region where corruption, institutionalised racism, sexism, and religious hatred are all endemic. Great! Fantastic! The cry for freedom cannot remain unheard forever! Right? Well sort of, the chain of events that triggered the protests, demonstrations and civil wars happened so quickly it made western leader's head's spin. America's reaction to Egypt for example was one of thinly veiled horror at first, why? Because Mubarak for better or for worse had been a source of stability in the region for decades, yes certainly he was a dictator, but he was a friendly dictator, one that listened to the Americans, brought their aircraft and guns and stomped hard on hardline Islamists that dared poke their heads out.

But wait! I hear you cry, aren't America and Britain champions of democracy? Wasn't that the partial justification for Iraq and Afghanistan? Well spotted friends, that is indeed the case, which is why the Obama Administration changed their tune to one of support for the movement, cautiously. (Watch some of the Whitehouse press briefings from later in the spring last year, you can almost literally hear arses being covered.) The thing about the west is, yes we like democracy, but we like our democracy, clean(ish) and secular (in theory – here's looking at you Santorum, or rather, not.) But we've had a fair few centuries to practice it and history tells us that nothing born of revolution is particularly good or stable (e.g. The early years of the French Republic, Communism, The United States...) I'm mostly kidding about that last one, mostly (but it's a topic I will undoubtedly cover at a later date, complete with my usual laconic wit.) Then, alongside a spate of smaller actions across the region (Also affecting various US/UK allied nations in the region and suffice to say certain government responses made things rather awkward for everyone) there was Libya. Ah Libya so simple, so easy. The Arab League hated Gadaffi, the French and British both had large displaced workforces along the coast thanks to oil production, and by the time things got crazy, Egypt had settled down. Not only this but its geographical location meant that both NATO air and sea assets could be utilised very effectively in enforcing a 'no fly zone' (also no tank, artillery or sniper zone, cough.) Additionally, the tactical situation on the ground was ideal, the majority of the fighting was concentrated along the coast, the Rebel faction held a great deal of territory on the eastern side of the country, and the battle lines were clear. Civilians were in danger, heroic rebels were in with a chance of overthrowing an evil git! (That we'd already bombed before a couple of times,) plus (somewhat unbelievably) the U.N said it was OK! Military powers...ACTIVATE! If any of you watched the news at all last year I’m sure you all know how that turned out.

So now we come to the crux of the matter, Syria. You can't see it but I'm grimacing at the thought of this, the Arab League has said it's a bad situation, the U.N says its a bad situation, everyone (sane) AGREES it's a bad situation, and yet nothing yet has been done. Why? On the surface it seems obvious right? Thousands dead and dying much of the population displaced, the country splintered with a madman at its helm, sounds pretty similar to another war the west intervened in doesn't it? Well actually it does, but for those of you who are too young to even have the vaguest sense of what I’m talking about, I’m talking about the Yugoslav wars, particularly the atrocities committed in the conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serbs.) It's too long and complex to detail here but essentially a lot of civilians died very horribly much like Syria, NATO was forced into action after the Srebrenica Massacre, wherein 8000 young Muslim men and boys were systematically slaughtered by Republica Srpska forces.Indeed the causes of the conflict and socio-historical reasons underlying the atrocities were different, but that should not matter. The human cost is the issue, not what the reason for that cost is.

There are however several problems with intervening in Syria, first off Syria is slap bang in the middle of a diplomatic hot zone, sharing borders with Iraq, Lebanon and Israel. NATO Naval and Air assets are already heavily committed in the area yes, dealing with other potential threats. Which brings me neatly to my next set of problems. Secondly Syria is big time pals with Iran. In fact it was recently reported by the BBC that a high ranking member of the Iranian Republican Guard 'Quds Force' (the hardcore of the hardcore) is serving the current ruling family, the Assad family, in an 'advisory role'. This also raises questions about who else is in country. But what about the U.N? They have peacekeepers right? Yes they do, and broadly speaking they've got much better at their job since Bosnia, so with NATO forces potentially unavailable, why aren't they acting? Well for starters, because of the way the U.N works unfortunately. In order to maintain a balance of power among the permanent members of the security council any member has a power of veto over a resolution passing through the chamber.

Now the issue here is, even when countless human lives are at stake, we don't all get along. Russia and China both abstained from voting over action in Libya thus allowing the Security Council's resolutions on the issues to pass and action to be taken. Why did they do this? International pressure prevented them from doing anything else, Libya was short of friends with any real diplomatic weight behind them. But it was a sacrifice for both nations, Libya was a large export market for Russian and Chinese arms sales, the arms embargoes and subsequent intervention in Libya cut off that market, resulting in a significant loss of revenue for both nations. Naturally they weren't too pleased with this. Syria on the other hand is, as I mentioned before, pretty friendly with Iran, Iran is pretty friendly with Venezuela (another member of the 'America is the devil' club, something that I will also write about) and all three are... Yup you guessed it, large consumers of Russian and Chinese arms. So as a result of this Russia and China have managed to dig their heels in and halt action of any kind, thus prolonging the slaughter of thousands. Lastly there also doesn't appear to be much coherence within the rebel factions, unlike Libya, making the tactical situation on the ground that much harder to deal with.

However recent video footage has also emerged from a military hospital in Homs, where wounded individuals discovered at protest sites (wounded by artillery and snipers by the way) are tortured by regime personnel. Russia has recently been implicated in supplying ammunition to the Syrian Army too, so not only are they apparently fine with the actions of the regime, they may in fact be complicit. What is this the 1980s? (Look up Nicaragua). Are Russia and China so desperate to maintain their spheres of influence that they're willing to turn a blind eye to Artillery strikes against ordinary people? The Parallels are there, something must be done before we have another Srebrenica on our hands.

Thanks for Reading

Wheelchairman2