Let us say it absolutely clearly. Every true democrat must today want the Assad regime in Syria to fall, and to help it to go. A true democrat, in other words a free citizen, is someone who refuses to look at the world through the eyes of conspiracy theories that regard Western countries simply as docile lackeys of the Great Satan, imperialist America. A free citizen is someone who considers that universal values must be defended everywhere and that the promotion and defence of these values are the only way to establish the legitimacy of international law and its organisations, with the United Nations at their head.
That is why we can only hope that the Syrian regime falls. And that a stop will finally be put to more than forty years of a dictatorial regime hidden under the cloak of a pseudo socialism that describes itself as secular and which has been practised on Ba'athist lines. The end of a regime which has been a sinister participant in killings, in the disaster of 15 years of wars in neighbouring Lebanon, and which was responsible for the 1981 murder of the French ambassador to the Lebanon Louis Delamare and so many other attacks.
A crime that defies all the laws of war has just been committed; the use of weapons of mass destruction (for chemical weapons certainly come into that category) against a civilian population, a usage that is obviously outlawed by international treaties and conventions. All the indications at this stage are that the direct responsibility lies with the Bashar al-Assad regime (though was it his officials, his army, his militias, his foreign military advisers?).
In reacting to it – for react one must – do we have to go to war? A war that, certainly, will not be called as such – there will be talk of “limited operations of targeted air strikes” - but which cannot escape this key point: several Western countries, including France, are going to engage directly in the battlefield in Syria. Do they have to? We do not think so, when a military intervention appears at this stage to be a dangerous headlong rush, without legal basis, which is at one and the same time a form of camouflage for past errors and acts of cowardice, an opportunistic management of public opinion and the possible trigger for a regional cataclysm with incalculable consequences.
The Syrian revolution, which began in the spring of 2011 amid the enthusiastic feeling that this was the Arab equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, deserved much, much better. The West, Europe, the United States, were missing in action, all preoccupied with small-minded calculations as to their influence over different factions of an opposition in exile that often represented no one but themselves. This was when they were not simply paralysed in the face of these societies suddenly waking up and fighting for liberty, democracy and overthrowing the Old World.
Now the Western powers have their backs to the wall. This war – if it is started – is already a sign of their failure, the dangerous consequence of two years of incompetence. It must be recalled once again, as was the case with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, that entering a war is, first of all, fuelled by silences and lies. One should add that at the start of the 21st century war is no longer, as Clausewitz insisted, the “continuation of politics by other means”. Once it has been entered into, war takes on a life of its own, shatters realities and all too often dictates its own rhythm to politicians. “When you dip your finger in war you never know where it will lead you or where it will end,” said General Vincent Desportes, former director of the French centre for war doctrine the Centre de doctrine d'emploi des forces (CDEF), two years ago, speaking of the entry into the Libyan war.
And today the widespread silences and disinformation makes untenable a military operation that – once again – is presented to us as if it were a walk in the park. The scenario will already have been sketched out: three days of air strikes on identifiable targets of the Assad regime (airbases, military command sites, equipment dumps). The anticipated outcome: the neutralisation of the Syrian Army's chemical capability, the eventual collapse of the regime – which some sources suggest is weakening; at the very least a shock that will lead the dictator or other key figures in the regime to finally agree to sitting down at the negotiating table to help establish a political transition...
This scenario could of course happen, but for the moment it resembles a fairytale. Unless that is France, and the United States – it now looks as if Britain will not take part in any intervention - possess information that is the result of some solid intelligence work and which would give credibility to such a plan. In which case, why not make the inofrmation public and explain how this military engagement will only be one part of a global and credible plan for a political solution to the conflict? However, Russian aggression, the capacity of resistance already shown by the Syrian regime over many months, the repeated warnings from Iran, all lead one to believe that the plan suddenly being brandished by the Western governments (who in recent months have been saying just the contrary, in other words evoking the danger of this type of intervention) seems more like a gamble which is, at the very least, hazardous.
Tackling Russia head-on...
For the alternative scenario has been known for some time; that of regional unrest that gets out of control. The recent attacks in the Lebanon, which are a direct result of the Syrian conflict, show that the Damascus regime, via its ally Hezbollah, is ready to create havoc in that country. The resurgence of violence in Iraq (nearly 50 deaths last weekend alone) is also linked to developments in the Syrian civil war.
At this stage who can rule out the losing regime of Bashar al-Assad opting for chaos and mad - and mass - destruction: for example new uses of chemical weapons or missile strikes on Israel? Who can exclude an escalation in the weapons being used, with Russia deciding to increase further its military support for Damascus? Who can exclude the direct involvement of Iran, or of Iraq sinking once more into religious and sectarian war? Who can rule out the launching of large-scale massacres in the north of Syria, which is today largely held by the Kurds?
These are only some of the many questions and potential catastrophes that a military intervention risks provoking. Rather than resorting to obstinate silences and hollow phrases, the Western countries must as a matter of urgency state clearly how they intend to contain these risks. Yet up to now there has been no detail given on these basic issues: what are the objectives, what are the 'war aims', what will be the next steps after the air strikes are over?
Enlargement : Illustration 2
Russia, another key player in the conflict, is equally guilty of silences and lies. In blocking for the last two years every effort towards a political solution, in defending the indefensible acts of the Assad regime, in paralysing the UN Security Council, Vladimir Putin bears an enormous responsibility. He is also responsible for the escalation in the war, recalling the worst moments of Soviet foreign policy.
Yet, like the United States, Europe, and in particular France, have for the last two-and-a-half years refused to engage in a trial of strength with Putin's Russia. The strategy was quite the opposite: to keep Russia on board, to cajole it, in the hope that it would make its ally Bashar al-Assad give way. We are today paying a heavy price for this staggering naivety; an escalating military action, and a very dangerous weakening of the United Nations and the Security Council, the guarantor of international law.
For by blocking three UN resolutions on Syria, through threatening its veto, and by making new resolutions impossible, Russia has returned the Security Council to the status it had during the Cold War; a mechanism that was useless because it was constantly paralysed by successive vetoes from the Americans and the Soviet Union. If today the Security Council is unable even to make countries respect the basics of international law – the laws relating to war and arms treaties – then what point does it serve? In the light of this Western governments should openly and forcefully reopen discussions on a thorny issue that is always mentioned but never put into action: reform of the Security Council.
Instead, they have deserted this crucial battle as the UN is now being short-circuited, kicked into the long grass with the argument – real enough but rather short-sighted – that the Russians are blocking it. One consequence of this is the absence of an unarguable legal basis for carrying out an intervention in Syria. Another is that the mission of the UN inspectors sent on the ground to establish that chemical weapons were used has been marginalised. The West should have fought relentlessly to give this mission all the means necessary to carry out full inspections; instead they have already being discredited.
That was a serious mistake, for entering the war can only be done on the basis of one undeniable fact: that it was the Assad regime that deliberately made the choice to use chemical weapons for mass killings. This is, indeed, what many sections of the opposition and Syrian fighters are saying today – and they are more than credible. That is what non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – for example Médecins Sans Frontières, who are normally very cautious, are saying. But this assessment must also be established by an unquestionable authority, and presented and discussed at the Security Council.
That will now either not be done, or be done badly, allowing doubts to remain about the real reasons for the military operation. The US Secretary of State John Kerry, President François Hollande and British prime minister David Cameron claim that the direct responsibility of the Syrian regime has been shown. Witnesses, scientific experts, intelligence gathering, aerial photos, eavesdropping on Syrian military officials, all agree. But at the same time Moscow says it has sent the Security Council elements of proof that show the opposite...
Showing undeniable proof
The urgent issue at this stage is now to make public the proof of Bashar al-Assad's responsibility. And not to repeat the lie used by then US Secretary of State Colin Powell before the Security Council in February 2003 when he held up a little vial that was said to be one of the proofs of the existence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction...which turned out not to exist. Can one imagine that an intervention of this type could be undertaken without irrefutable proof of the Syrian regime's responsibility being made public?
The next urgent step is to set out a credible political process based on a serious evaluation of the different participants in the Syrian civil war. To its credit France has continued to show its willingness to help build a structured opposition in Syria, bringing together fighters on the ground, politicians and opponents in exile. François Hollande was indeed the first to recognise the Syrian National Council, which has since been engulfed in in-fighting and become known as the “coalition”.
But rivalry between the different powers, regional interests and Syrian factions have demolished these attempts. Today it is Saudi Arabia that is largely in control of this opposition coalition, with Qatar waiting in ambush. Is that what France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Turkey want? Each country has danced to its own tune, thinking that the fall of the regime in Damascus was imminent and they were already jockeying for position in the Great Game that would follow. This was a fatal error that has allowed massacres to continue (probably around 100,000 dead in two years of revolution and then civil war) and has left the way open to jihadist groups while at the same time giving Bashar al-Assad more room for manoeuvre.
Enlargement : Illustration 3
For more drawings from Syrian artists click here.
A military intervention could doubtless make Western public opinion forget the repeated strategic errors committed since 2011. But it will not repair the Syrian disaster, a devastated and divided country where in addition to the deaths some 2.5 million people have been displaced or turned into refugees.
Yet there are alternatives to military strikes which, while they might doubtless be more complex, and certainly take longer, would avoid the immense risks of an explosion in the powder keg that is the Middle East.
The first is to enforce a regime of draconian sanctions aimed at the main Syrian leaders.
The second is to accept having a major diplomatic conflict with Russia.
The third is to ask the International Criminal Court to look into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Syria.
The fourth is to negotiate with Iran.
The fifth is to arm, at last, the Syrian opposition on the basis of clear policies which do not leave the ground open for jihadist groups or Saudi Arabia acting on its own.
The sixth is to elaborate a political plan that is coordinated between the various powers and which aims to organise the period following Assad's departure.
These approaches have regularly been aired by specialists and political experts in the region. The self-interests of the powers, poor judgement and ulterior motives have combined to prevent them being pursued. Several groups in the Syrian opposition now do not want Western intervention. How can the West justify aerial attacks when the same West has steadfastly refused to arm a rebellion that was at the beginning secular and democratic and which is today threatened by jihadist advances? Is it not now time to give massive help to rebuilding this democratic movement based on the numerous citizen networks that exist and on a Syrian youth that is hungry for freedom?
It is a narrow path, and one made more difficult still by the errors and shortfalls of the last two years. It is the only one possible if the ambition is to move towards a lasting peace in the whole of this region.
-----------------------------------------------
English version by Michael Streeter