20 September 2012 By Amir Taheri As Bashar al-Assad continues to kill Syrians at an
average rate of 100 a day, the Obama administration's
hesitations, deviations and tergiversations on this
issue appear increasingly cynical. Obama and his supporters try to explain, and
explain away, his failure to develop a credible policy
on Syria by citing a number of "problems" ostensibly
beyond the US president's control. The first "problem", they claim, is that the Syrian
opposition is divided. Is that true? I think not. Unity must not be confused with unanimity. No
doubt, the millions who are risking their lives to
fight a bloodthirsty despot do not all think the same
on all issues. Nor are they all members of a single
party. In a society that has suffered under one-party rule
for six decades, apparent uniformity is often no more
than a facade. Once that façade crumbles, society is
splintered into countless slivers. In the aftermath of
the collapse of the Soviet Union, no fewer than 120
parties of all sizes emerged from the debris of
Communism. Iraq after Saddam Hussein gave birth to
over 200 parties. In any case, what one hopes for Syria is a
pluralist system in which people could think
differently, believe differently and act differently
within a freely accepted framework under the rule of
law. Syria is a mosaic of ethnic and religious
communities that should have a voice both in
opposition and in a future Syria. Having said all that, the Syrian opposition is
united on key issues. In one voice, all parties and
groups in the uprising demand that al-Assad step
aside, paving the way for a transitional government.
They all insist that the al-Assad system be replaced
with a pluralist one with governments chosen through
free elections. On a more formal basis, the Syrian opposition has
created organs of unity through the Syrian National
Army (SNA) and the Syrian National Council which has
already been recognized as a legitimate authority by
more than 30 nations. So, the claim that the US should do nothing to stop
the bloodshed because the Syrian opposition is divided
is manifestly false. The second "problem" cited by Obama is that Syrians
have not managed to set up "liberated zones" as was
the case in Libya during the uprising to topple
another Arab despot. "Where is the Syrian Benghazi," Obama spokesmen
ask. The comparison with Libya is misplaced. Libya is a
vast country with a sparse population, and, without
air cover by NATO, it is unlikely that Benghazi could
have held its own against Colonel Gaddafi's air force
and armored divisions. Even then, the anti-Assad forces have already set
up "liberated zones" in at least five provinces. These
pockets of territory are home to almost a million
Syrians. A further 250,000 Syrians have fled to
neighboring countries. More importantly, perhaps, the
Syrian opposition has mini-Benghazis in the heart of
the capital Damascus and in Aleppo, the country's most
populous city. The third "problem", cited by Obama apologists, is
that the US cannot lead on this issue because of the
Russian veto in the United Nations' Security Council.
To be sure, Russia's views on this as on other
relevant issues of international concern must be taken
into account. However, one should not forget that the
veto concerns only the Security Council. It does not
and should not stop a range of measures approved by
the General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General and the
various organs of the UN. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, one
must admit, is more seriously concerned about the
Syrian tragedy, says that the US will continue seeking
Russian support through the Security Council. Last
week she said that if disagreement with Russia
continues the US would support the Syrian opposition.
What this means in practice is that the Russian veto
is effective beyond the Security Council and also
covers aspects of US foreign policy. The fourth "problem" claimed by Obama apologists is
that the United States' European and regional allies
have not done their part. Obama says he wants to "lead
from behind", whatever that means, and insists that
the US should play a supportive part in schemes
devised and executed by allies. Leaving aside the nonsense about "leading from
behind", the claim that European and regional allies
have been lethargic is patently false. Turkey has taken high risks to support the Syrian
uprising and is now paying the price by becoming a
target for terrorism sponsored by Tehran and Damascus.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states have hosted
Syrian opposition groups and provided financial
support. Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon have to deal with a
growing number of refugees from Syria. Egypt's new
President Muhammad Mursi brought the voice of the
Syrian uprising to the heart of Tehran during last
week's Non-Aligned Movement summit. For their part,
the European Union, especially France and Great
Britain, have led the way by imposing strong sanctions
against the al-Assad regime and providing a range of
support for the uprising. Finally, Obama apologists cite another "problem":
the fear that al-Assad's fall could mark the coming to
power of "hardline Islamists". This old chestnut has been around for decades. It
was used by a string of Arab despots to justify their
own hold on power. Even Gaddafi marketed himself in
the West as "a rampart against Islamists". Some
Western "experts" claimed that Arabs should not have
freedom because if they did they would immediately
choose Islamist "holy warriors" and declare Jihad on
the outside world. The truth is that wherever we have had reasonably
clean pluralist elections in the Muslim world, from
Indonesia to Morocco, the Islamist bogeyman set up of
Western "experts" failed to attract more than a
quarter of the electorate. In any case, the idea is to
let Syrians choose whom they want, not whomever
outsiders might prefer. With Russia acting as big power backbone for an
alliance to save al-Assad, even at the cost of killing
large numbers of Syrians, Washington needs to step
forward to counterbalance Moscow. A coalition of the
willing seeking to save Syria from a deranged despot
is already in place. It needs leadership. Whether one
likes it or not, the US is still the only power
capable of providing that. Obama has no excuses to
shirk that responsibility. Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran,
and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was
Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
(1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for
the Sunday Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of
the Executive Board of the International Press
Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a
contributor to the International Herald Tribune. He
has written for the Wall Street Journal, the New York
Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French
magazine Politique Internationale, and the German
weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he was editorial
writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has
published 11 books, some of which have been translated
into 20 languages. He has been a columnist for Asharq
Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian
Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and
New York. Comments 💬 التعليقات |