The Cries Of Syria Are Getting Louder – Will The UN Convince Russia It’s Time To Condemn The Syrian Regime
by Lorelei Loveridge on January 31, 20128 comments
I’ve been to Syria, twice. Once, on a holiday from Lebanon. The second time, to escape war.
I’ll talk about the atrocities of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime that has, like the others who have fallen in the Middle East, erred insanely in assuming its own importance and slaughtering its own people to secure power. If you’ve got the nerve, look at these honest, bloody videos, purporting to be evidence that has the Arab League of Nations frantic to put a stop to this inhumane criminal activity. You’ll never see these in Western media.
The Qatari government and other heavy hitters including the Saudi leadership are working to prompt the United Nations Security Council to issue a resolution to ensure the removal of the now illegitimate Syrian president. Arab News in Saudi Arabia reports today:
RIYADH: Saudi Arabia expressed sadness on Monday at the rising number of civilian deaths because of government repression in Syria and stressed the need to stop the bloodshed.
The Kingdom’s statement came in the meeting of the Council of Ministers chaired by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah at Yamamah Palace in Riyadh.
The council discussed the recent Arab League decision to end the observers’ task in Syria following the deepening of the crisis in the country, Minister of Social Affairs Yousuf Al-Othaimin, who is also acting minister of culture and information, said in a statement to the Saudi Press Agency after the weekly meeting of the council.
King Abdullah briefed the council on the discussions and messages received from world leaders. The king received a message from Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani and a telephone call from Moroccan King Muhammad VI over the past week.
The council reviewed a communiqué of the meeting between the GCC and Turkey, which emphasized strong relations between the two sides as a major factor in maintaining peace and stability in the region.
A joint communiqué of the ministers agreed “international efforts should be focused on bringing the bloodshed in Syria to an immediate end and paving the way for the initiation of a political transition process in line with the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Syrian people.”
Yes. And Russia is threatening already to veto the UN Security Council Resolution to force Bashar Al-Assad out of the Syrian presidency…because Syria is Russia’s closest Middle Eastern ally. The Guardian newspaper reports again today, via British Prime Minister David Cameron, the appalling numbers: 5000 dead in the last year of violence including 400 children. The latest developments regarding the UN Resolution discussions are well summarized.
• Foreign ministers have gathered at the UN headquarters in New York to show support for an Arab-Western resolution to end the violence in Syria and to try to overcome Russian-led opposition to a demand political change in Damascus. Diplomats said a vote was likely by Thursday, after the council considers a report by the Arab League secretary general, Nabil Elaraby, and the Qatari prime minister, Hamad Bin Jassim, followed by an ambassadors’ meeting on Wednesday aimed at finding a compromise formula acceptable to Russia, Assad’s principal supporter. The opposition Syrian National Council backed a resolution calling for Assad to go.
• The draft resolution calls on Bashar al-Assad to hand power to his deputy but insists there will be no use of foreign forces in the country, according to AP. It says the Assad regime should immediately put “an end to all human rights violations and attacks against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression.”
• Russia has repeated its opposition to the resolution. Deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov said it would not lead to compromise and that pushing for it “is a path to civil war”.
• French foreign minister Alan Juppe has confirmed western doubts that Russia can be persuaded to back the draft resolution.“We’re blocked by a number of countries, mainly Russia, which opposes every resolution (on Syria),” he told Europe 1 radio. US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the US was “willing to go through the process” of trying to win backing for the proposals. David Cameron accused Russia of “shielding those with blood on their hands”.
• The opposition Syrian National Council has called for a day of “anger and mourning” after activists said up to 100 people, mostly civilians, were killed on Monday, making it one of the bloodiest days of the uprising. The majority of the reported deaths were in Homs, with the Local Co-ordination Committees putting the number of people killed in the central province on Monday at 76. Several activist groups, including the LCC, reported the discovery of the bodies of a family of six in their home in Karm al-Zeitoun, in Homs. Activists say they were tortured by the Shabiha (pro-Assad militia) before being executed.
• Government forces have moved into the two remaining eastern suburbs of the capital still in reblel hands, activists say. “Intense shooting was heard in Zamalka and Arbeen as the tanks advanced,” the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, citing its network of sources on the ground. Regime forces made sweeping arrests in the nearby town of Rankous, which has been under siege for a week, activists said. The LCC has described the eastern suburbs of the capital as a “disaster area” and called for the Red Crescent and Red Cross to be allowed in. It named 39 people it said had been killed in eastern Ghouta. The state news agency said security forces “killed big numbers of terrorists and caught many others”. It claimed the “terrorists” were armed with US and Israeli made weapons.
• Military defectors have taken full control of al-Rastan in Homs, after days of intense clashes, an activist told AP. Defectors claimed on Monday to have destroyed nine tanks and the political security bureau in al-Rastan. A video was posted online, purportedly showing the operation. The town has been seized by defectors twice in the past, only to be retaken by Syrian troops.
12.46pm: The Associated Press says it has seen the draft United Nations resolution on Syria.
It says it calls on Bashar al-Assad to to delegate his “full authority to his deputy” to allow a national unity government to lead transition to a democratic system.
It also calls on Assad’s regime to immediately put “an end to all human rights violations and attacks against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression.”
The text, the drafting of which has been led by Morocco, insists it does not compel “states to resort to the use of force, or the threat of force”.
12.17pm: Burhan Ghalioun, leader of the opposition Syrian National Council, has called on the UN to denounce the Assad regime.
As usual, politically wrangling takes place while lives are lost. How sad. Russia is threatening to veto any resolution that demands the President of Syria step down, because this action will supposedly lead to civil war. Another 100 people died in Syria yesterday. I’d say the ‘civil war’ is underway now. How many people will die from the Syrian army’s grossly corrupt actions tomorrow?
We’ll never know all the individual stories of this increasingly brutal action of the Syrian government, and surely there are and were atrocities committed in revenge. But a scan of YouTube takes me to this: one that makes me want to rage against ‘the machine’ for not stopping the bloodshed before now:
It is not the Syria I saw in April 2006, when I grabbed a $10 seat in a share taxi from Beirut, Lebanon to get the Syrian capital of Damascus, for a holiday. Those days are gone. I’ll tell that story another day.
Leave a comment
We enjoy healthy debate and respectful conversation at the Paltry Sapien and do not censor based on political or ideological views. Please refrain from commentary that is derogatory to other users, abusive, off-topic, includes too many links, or uses excessive foul-language. Comments are moderated, and will not appear until approved.
8 comments
Matt Payne on January 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm. #
“Will the UN Convince Russia to Condemn Syria?”
No.
Here to provide short answers to difficult questions.
Matt Payne on January 31, 2012 at 1:45 pm. #
And just to be clear, why is Russia going to abandon a major ally in the region? Since major allies of the Americans, such as Bahrain and Yemen can gun down as many people as they want. Moreover, the Syrian regime has been a major ally of Russia in the region for generations. What do they get for playing ball with the UN–another Libyan scenario and lost international credibility. Why would they do that? So folks could tell them they did the right thing? Anyone with the least acquaintance with either the Putin regime or Russian geo-strategic thinking knows how low that is on the “to-do” list. Russia tried to work with the UN in the 1990s and got reamed. Lesson learned.
Matt Payne on January 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm. #
And, finally, of course the Syrian regime is reprehensible but the West and the international community have zero, zero credibility on human rights given the debacle in post-Gaddhafi Libya and the Iraqi invasion. The UN has waaaaay too much Arab blood on its hands to be a facilitator for peace.
Lorelei Loveridge on January 31, 2012 at 2:32 pm. #
It sounds logical. But is it? Russia wanting to play the ‘goodie’ by hosting talks between the Syrian government and opposition in Moscow?
http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/russia-offers-syria-mediation-but-opposition-says-no_4481
If it smells like a sham, it likely is. Russia supplies weapons to Syria and through Syria. Of course, it’s a sham, to serve the interests of Russia. Fine. But, not at the expense of human rights and human life.
Like him or not, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has a point in saying that Russia will not want to go against the world’s opinion, and it appears that Russia is already softening its stance. So, don’t be too sure that Russia won’t at least abstain from voting, rather than vetoing the Arab League recommendations…supported by western governments. The situation cannot go on, and Russia isn’t so uncivilized to allow itself to appear uncivilized. There are limits to the length of time the world can ignore the loss of human life – and while the solution won’t be perfect, there is a solution coming for the Syrian people. It must come soon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9052830/Syria-Russia-under-intense-pressure-to-agree-UN-resolution.html
Matt on January 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm. #
Hey, what do I know, but Russia will veto. That’s why its sponsoring it’s own UN Resolution. You might want to ask the Georgians what the Russians care about “world opinion” and as for the British, well Putin sent radioactive sushi to London, didn’t he. The Russians aren’t weak and the Russians don’t care. They see plenty of opportunity to fish in shallow waters and given the domestic situation, they are not in the mood to sit on the hands while another authoritarian regime falls. They learned the lesson the Chinese gave at Tianamen. Plus, given the disaster of post-Cameron-Sarkozy-Obama’s intervention in Libya, the Russian foreign policy establishment is on firm ground. Nope, the Arab League-NATO two-step worked once with Moscow, I doubt they’re going to fall for it again.
Now, true–if they get what they want on another front–like no invasion of Iran, they might throw Syria under the bus. But again, I doubt it. Moscow has no reason to play nice with either the Gulf Arab States or the West, since they don’t play nice with it.
Matt on January 31, 2012 at 5:32 pm. #
BTW, the world has ignored the 6 million in “loss of life” in the Congo over the last decade and a half and will gladly do so in the Syrian case if it is worth various nation’s interests. As for Russians being uncivilized, they stayed in Georgia one week, the West was in Iraq for 9 years.
Lorelei Loveridge on January 31, 2012 at 8:08 pm. #
I was in Georgia months before the invasion of Russia. No nation invited Russia in. That was a self serving maneuver on the part of Russia. to quash any sign of rebellion that could affect Russia and the people of interest to Russia in Georgia. The leadership of Iraq itself wanted the West in, once the dirty deed of invasion and regime change was done. Of course, perhaps regime change never needed to happen…there are, as you say, many nations in the world like the incredibly corrupt Republic of Congo, who could stand ‘regime change’; alas, it will never happen because those nations seemingly have nothing to offer the world, or the problem is too big with too little regional support. Corruption begets corruption. It is morally bankrupt, but in practical terms…’understandable’? These situations cannot be compared in real terms.
I’m assuming you agree with this writer from The Guardian who points out the self serving interests of the West: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothing-moral-nato-intervention-libya . But that does not take away the need for someone to intervene here, and the Arabs know the Arab world best, and they are crying for support. That’s rare enough, and there is a legitimacy to that, I believe, surely a moral imperative for the world to act. The Arab world has collectively voiced an opinion. The same has not happened in the Congo, unfortunately. No one has gone to the UN to pressure the world into action.
All oppressive regimes should get their due, and won’t because of limited will and resources to be involved in other nations’ conflicts/wars. But in the end I believe if there is a strong enough movement from the inside, and the world deems it a ‘just cause’ to free a people up from a despot, there will have to be action. And in the case of Syria, with or without Russian support, the world will get there.
Matt on February 1, 2012 at 7:44 am. #
Lorelei, which “leaders” of Iraq wanted the West in? Saddam? It was an invasion, just like the invasion of Georgia was an invasion, which in both cases I consider “self-serving.” More to the point, the Russians left after a week and left only a couple hundred dead. The Americans, UN and the West only left Iraq when they were thrown out after hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. This idea that Russia is incredibly destructive in international affairs given Washington’s lethal post-911 rampage does not pass the giggle test. Russians disagree with you on the advisability of “regime change” in Georgia, but here’s the point, when the could have imposed it and occupied Georgia, they didn’t. In fact, Putin was convinced by Sarkozy that if he hanged Misha, as he wanted–and pointed to Saddam being hanged by the American puppet regime–he’d be in as big of a pickle as Bush, so he left. And the Congo has nothing to offer the world? Except massive mineral deposits and huge amounts of minerals–which is at the center of the on-going civil war. The mess in the Congo is largely the West’s doing as it (and the US specifically) created the massive corruption of the Seko regime. And yes, efforts have been made by lots of African countries to get UN intervention in the Congo. No one cares. Kleptocracy, as far as the West is concerned, is a feature, not a bug. See Arabia, Saudia.
And “Arabs” clamoring for intervention, seems to depend on which “Arabs” one is talking about. Presumably the Arabs of Sirte, having had their city destroyed by intervention (as well as those of Fallujah and Haditha) have different views on the matter. I have no doubt the Arab elites of conservative dictatorships/monarchies would love to see air strikes, I’m also sure the rebels who have engaged in vicious racial attacks and horrific reprisals in places like Libya are “clamoring for intervention”–I’m not so sure the Arabs whose children will be blown to tiny bits by predators and NATO air strkes view things the same way. Surprisingly, those countries who have been bombed by Americans–Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia–have very high indices of anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment. Gee, can’t imagine why.
A final point and then I’ll agree to disagree with you. We have a fundamentally different view of “humanitarian” intervention. I do not consider it “humanitarian” at all. It quite often ends up being a figleaf to horrible colonial and neo-colonial regimes (this is certainly the record with CIA coup d’etats) and almost always privileges men of the gun. Always. Especially if America is involved since America loves to sell guns (ask Bahrain, and Muburak). More to the point, the killing machine that is the modern Western military is an indiscriminate murderer of civilians–hell, its very weapons systems (cluster bombs) are designed that way.
Finally, be careful what you wish for. I too would like to Assad fall, but if he falls due to the armed action of the Muslim Brotherhood as opposed to an awakened civil society, ala Tunisia, the Russians will seem prescient, indeed. I oppose “humanitarian” intervention and “regime change” against “despots” as useful fictions for quite anti-humanitarian and despotic realpolitik. I fear I will not be able to convince you that like Libya, using military force in Syria will be as big an humanitarian disaster as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. I know I won’t be able to convince the Obama regime since it is only concerned about not creating “huge amount of civilian casualties” but hopefully the NATO publics and the UN as a whole will take a pass on this one. I for one don’t want to be wondering, how did we get a Taliban in Syria?