The Arab League Game: Depriving The
Syrian People The Right To Save Their Lives
12 Jan 2012By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
We must understand that a game is being played by
certain parties within the Arab League in order to
cover up for the massacres that are taking place in
Syria and prevent the al-Assed regime from being
ousted. Therefore the team of Arab monitors being sent
to observe the situation in Syria, and the mediation
being initiated by Khaled Meshal of Hamas and Iran,
represent nothing more than a game whose sole
objective is to buy time for the al-Assad regime to
kill more activists and save its own neck. More than
three months have passed since the Arab League first
started calling for the Syrian regime to negotiate,
this has allowed the al-Assad regime to regain control
of some areas where protests and demonstrations had
broken out. If the Arab League, Khaled Meshal, Iran,
and Russia succeed in protecting al-Assad from
international intervention for another nine months, he
may succeed in quelling the uprising altogether. In
this case, nothing would prevent al-Assad from
imprisoning half a million activists and protesters,
and occupying the country's cities with his troops and
pro-regime Shabiha militia.
International intervention [in Syria] doesn't violate
morals, national sovereignty, Arab identity or Islam,
rather this is a necessity to counteract the brutality
of the regime and the support – in money, arms, and
even men – that al-Assad is receiving from other
countries. There are a number of important examples
where international involvement was crucial to
protecting citizens from tyrannical regimes. The list
includes NATO intervention in Bosnia to protect the
Muslims of Kosovo, as well as international
intervention to liberate Kuwait from occupation by
Saddam Hussein's forces. More than twenty years ago, a
similar debate raged amongst the Arabs over the
legality of international intervention. Saddam Hussein
had invaded Kuwait on 2 August [1990]. The Arabs split
into two camps; one supporting Saddam Hussein's
occupation of Kuwait, the other wanting to drive him
out. The first camp knew that it would be impossible
for the Gulf armies to drive Saddam Hussein's forces
out of Kuwait, and so they feared this being achieved
by international intervention. The second camp was
aware that Iran had fought Iraq for eight years
without being able to achieve a victory, whilst any
Arab force would require even longer to confront the
Saddam Hussein military regime, and even then would
not be guaranteed victory. Therefore each party
entered into a war of words; the Gulf axis wanted US
intervention as this would guarantee a quick victory,
but they also wanted to ensure this had international
legitimacy via the UN Security Council, in order not
to anger the Arab world. The second pro-Saddam camp
strongly opposed [international] intervention, and
they labelled anybody who dared to support this as a
traitor or agent of a foreign power. Instead, they
called for an "Arab solution", to the crisis, namely
Arab troops being sent to liberate Kuwait, although,
of course, the real objective was to dilute the issue.
The recent idea of sending Arab observers to Syria was
put forward for two reasons: firstly, in order to
avoid international intervention, and secondly in
order to grant the al-Assad regime more time to crush
the revolution by increasing its crackdown on the
Syrian protesters and political activists. The
international community did not call for observers to
be sent to monitor the situation when the Serbs were
massacring Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. The world
took action, telling the former regime in Belgrade
that it would either halt the violence or face
international intervention. Despite the objections of
Russia and some other European countries, it was
international intervention which eventually succeeded
in putting an end to the genocide. Nobody accepted the
invitation to send international observers there
because all the reports indicated that massacres were
being carried out, and the same applies to Syria
today.
It also bears mentioning that international
intervention is more needed in Syria today than it was
in Kosovo. In 1988, the crisis began when the people
of Kosovo announced their secession from Yugoslavia;
they then formed the Kosovo Liberation Army, which
fought the Serbs. In the case of Syria, the general
public are being systematically killed, although they
have neither called for secession nor offered any
armed resistance. The majority of the people are
peaceful protesters. Nevertheless, they are being
openly killed in front of the eyes of the world.
Therefore, how can some Arabs reject international
intervention in Syria and claim this is
neo-colonialism?
History is repeating itself. Today, the Arabs who want
to save al-Assad's regime from collapse are using a
strategy that is based upon two concepts; preventing
international intervention and granting al-Assad more
time to kill or detain the political activists. This
is the true story behind the rejection of
international intervention, which deprives the Syrian
people of their most basic human right, namely the
right to save their lives, and is something that
should not be denied, whatever the pretext.
Unfortunately, Arab League Secretary-General [Nabil
Elaraby] seems to believe his job is to prevent the
Syrian people from being saved from the massacre they
are facing, in addition to granting the al-Assad
regime more time to carry out these massacres.
Al Rashed is the general manager of Al -Arabiya
television. He is also the former editor-in-chief of
Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly
magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in
the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is
a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He
has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs.
He is currently based in Dubai.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments