How the West was Won on Syria: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

This article is a redaction from a number of articles from CNN looking at why Russia, China and Iran are backing Syria - February 5, 2012

RUSSIA

Apart from securing its energy contracts, a leased naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus is Russia's only direct access to the Mediterranean. Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region - be they revolutions, wars or regime change. It points to the Arab Spring and the US-led war in Iraq as evidence of the regional disruption and repercussions from American influence.

Russia doesn't want a repeat of Iraq, and Putin is still upset about NATO's bombing in Libya two years ago that removed Russian ally Moammar Gadhafi from power. Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region; believing humanitarian concerns are often used as an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests. The U.S. (Kerry, McCain et al.) is keen to stress that there is no end game here. Furthermore, Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers, an estimated $162 million a year (2010) along with a $550 million deal for combat training jets.

It also stems from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of the repressive system that he and al-Assad represent. In Putin's universe, al-Assad cannot lose because it means that one day he, Putin, might as well.

 

To that end, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists there's no proof yet Syria's government is behind the chemical weapons attack and that any plans to strike Syria would challenge the U.N. charter; accusing Washington of trying to "create artificial groundless excuses for military intervention." On Wednesday, Russia walked out of a U.N. Security Council meeting where Britain was expected to pursue a resolution to authorize the use of force against Syria, saying:

The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade.

As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia has the power to veto Security Council resolutions against the Syrian regime; and has done so repeatedly over the past two years. So, if the This means the US and its allies cannot rely on a U.N. mandate to green-light a military strike against Syria.

Even before the uprising in Syria, discontent had simmered for decades. In 1982, President Hafez al-Assad  clamped down on a Muslim Brotherhood uprising and one such attack left tens of thousands dead. At Hafez al-Assad's death in 2000, his son Bashar al-Assad (a Paediatrician who did his medical training in the U.S.) took over the presidency, promising to build a more modern and democratic nation. But reforms didn't come fast enough for activists, who called for change and slammed Syria's government as an "authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish regime." Sectarian and ethnic unrest shook Syria over the past decade, too. A Druze uprising (2000) and a Kurdish rebellion (2004).

 

Then in February 2011, in the city of Daraa, authorities arrested 15 schoolchildren for painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school ("The people want to topple the regime.") on the walls of the school before allegations spread that the children were allegedly mistreated while in custody and fuelling outrage and protests over their arrest. Security forces opened fire, killing at least four protesters - the first deaths in Syria's now civil war. Within days protests grew into massive rallies of thousands crying "Daraa!", the city whose children sparked a national movement.

 

In a March 2011 speech before applauding lawmakers, al-Assad said "conspirators" had started out there [Daraa] and wanted to spread unrest. This incensed the people including many who wanted to support the regime at the time. Two days later, weekly anti-government protests began across Syria. Calls for reforms soon escalated into calls for the removal of the entire al-Assad regime. Now, armed rebels have vowed to accept nothing less than al-Assad's ouster, while the Syrian government has labelled them terrorists and vowed not to back down. The United Nations estimates that the fighting has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

 

Last year President Obama said of Syria that a red line was if "we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." Now, the White House says it looks like Syria has used chemical weapons against its own people. Some argue that conventional weapons like guns or bombs also have a massive human toll. They say chemical weapons shouldn't be a turning point for the world to act. But the White House maintains that they're a game-changer:

The use of chemical weapons is contrary to the standards adopted by the vast majority of nations and international efforts since World War I to eliminate the use of such weapons. ... The use of these weapons on a mass scale and a threat of proliferation is a threat to our national interests and a concern to the entire world.

So here we are.

In June, the US said it would send the rebels small arms, ammunition and potentially anti-tank weapons. But that was long after the unrest started. Why the delay? Some argue that sending weapons to a region of the world that also contains Islamic extremists is risky business.

Many of the rebel fighters are militants with pro-al Qaeda sympathies, the same stripe of militants America has battled in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Syria rebels have promised U.S. and European officials that any military weaponry they get won't end up in extremists' hands. But that hasn't quelled criticism from some quarters that arming the rebels is a dangerous risk. Russian President Vladimir Putin has slammed the decision to arm the opposition. At an economic forum in June, he cautioned, "Where will those weapons end up?"

 

Putin has made it clear that Russia and the US disagree when it comes to Syria.

Russia and Syria are long-time allies. For instance, between 2007 and 2010, Russian firms selling weapons to Syria made almost $5 billion.

Russia's leadership still sees much to lose economically and strategically from cutting Syria loose. They sees Syria as another test case for the West's appetite for intervention and view the danger of U.S. involvement as a direct threat to their own interests.

Of-course there are sectarian and religious motives in the Syrian and loco-regional agenda. The al-Assad family is Alawite, a Shiite Muslim minority in a country that is nearly three-quarters Sunni.

Al-Assad has filled key positions in his government with extended family members, and many of his supporters are Alawites and other minorities; who fear reprisals if the Sunnis were to gain power.

 

Iran: U.S. military action in Syria would spark 'disaster'

In a worst-case scenario, the fighting could spill over and make trouble for Syria's neighbours, threatening stability in a part of the world known to be volatile. Surrounding Syria are Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, Israel and Turkey. The violence has been prompting war refugees to seek safety in some of these nations. In Turkey, there are ethnic tensions involving Kurds who live along its southern border with Syria.

All of these countries have a many religious, cultural and historical issues between them that add layers of complexity to the crisis. The key risk is a spill-over to, and escalation of,  the Arab-Israeli conflict; and the involvement of regional powers such as Iran.

IRAN

Iran and Syria are bound by two factors: religion and strategy.

Iran is the world's most populous Shiite Muslim nation. The Syrian government is dominated by Alawites (a Shiite offshoot) whilst the rebels are dominated by Sunnis. That connection has bound Syria with Iran for quite a while - Iran counted on Syria as its only Arab ally during its eight-year war with Iraq. Iraq was Sunni-dominated. The last thing Iran wants now is a Sunni-dominated Syria -- especially as the rebels' main supporters are Iran's Persian Gulf rivals: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

For Iran, Syria is also a key strategic ally as Iran's main conduit to the Shiite militia Hezbollah in Lebanon, the proxy through which Iran can threaten Israel with an arsenal of short-range missiles.

In 2009, the top U.S. diplomat in Damascus disclosed that Syria had begun delivery of ballistic missiles to Hezbollah (WikiLeaks).

It's in Iran's interest to see al-Assad's regime remain intact. Western intelligence officials believe the Islamic Republic has provided technical help such as intelligence, communications and advice on crowd control and weapons as protests in Syria morphed into resistance. A U.N. panel reported in May that Iranian weapons destined for Syria but seized in Turkey included assault rifles, explosives, detonators, machine guns and mortar shells. As noted by Ayham Kamel of Eurasia Group, Iran must be alarmed that the tide is turning against al-Assad:

Iran probably has excellent information regarding Assad's position. That information would make clear that Iran is increasingly likely to lose its only ally in the region, greatly reducing its strategic reach.

Iran has cast events in Syria as part of a much broader ideological battle. It's a "war between the front of hegemony and the front of resistance," said their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran's position is that the Syrian government is a victim of international plots. Iran believes the West and almost all Arab countries are in cahoots in an effort to implement regime change in Syria. Iran says the main objective of this plot is to make the region safer for Israel. This week, Zarif warned of "graver conditions" if Syria is attacked.

 

Many believe Iran is Washington's greatest threat in the region, especially with its nuclear potential, although it's unclear how Iran might respond if Syria is attacked. But the rhetoric certainly has been ominous such as that from Khamenei to the Iranian Cabinet this week:

Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences. The U.S. threats and possible intervention in Syria is a disaster for the region and if such an act is done, certainly, the Americans will sustain damage like when they interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

CHINA

China's relationship with Syria is more nuanced. Some say it wants to maintain its financial ties as Syria's third-largest importer (2010 data from the European Commission).

Beijing's renewed interest in Damascus -- the traditional terminus node of the ancient Silk Road ... indicates that China sees Syria as an important trading hub (2010 report from The Jamestown Foundation).

But there's a bigger factor at play: China has said foreign countries shouldn't meddle in Syria's internal affairs -- and perhaps for good reason. China has had its own share of international controversies over its policies with Tibet as well as allegations of human rights violations.

Finally, China doesn't want to reprise what happened with Libya - where it abstention from a U.N. Security Council resolution cleared the way for a NATO military intervention.

Yun Sun (Brookings Institution) in the East-West Centre's Asia Pacific Bulletin wrote that:

Neither the West nor the NTC (Libyan National Transitional Council) showed much appreciation for China's abstention. 

When it comes to Syria, China has now formulated a far more sophisticated hedging strategy, so that:

Rather than siding with either Assad or the opposition and standing aside to 'wait and see,' Beijing is actively betting on both.

Firmly opposed to the use of chemical weapons and supporting the U.N.'s chemical weapons inspectors, China has also said that it wants a political solution for Syria; although that's looking less and less likely. Like Russia, China also walked out of Wednesday's U.N. Security Council meeting where Britain planned to pursue a resolution on Syria.

China is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. And like Russia, China has repeatedly blocked sanctions attempts against the Syrian regime -- leading to a perpetual stalemate at the U.N. body to take any serious action on Syria.