A demarche against Damascus

The West seems to be losing patience over Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. After the recent Houla massacre, which claimed the lives of over a hundred people, more than a half of them being women and children, the US, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Switzerland announced they were expelling Syrian diplomats.

UN and Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan, who arrived in Damascus, has accused the Syrian regime of upsetting the peace plan. According to the UN, most of the Houla victims were executed. Annan demands that al-Assad take urgent measures to stop violence. “Words are a very good thing, but we need actions. We expect the Syrian government to show willingness to abide by the peace plan. What the international community is demanding now is actions, not words,” Annan said.

In the special envoy’s view, the situation in Syria has reached a critical point. In spite of this, Bashar al-Assad still insists that he has not violated the plan – he blamed the Houla bloodshed on the rebels.

Paris has made a still harsher statement to Damascus. France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called Assad “murderer of these people” and urged the Syrian leader to stand down as soon as possible. Meanwhile, President Francois Hollande of France does not rule out a military operation against the Assad regime on the condition that it is prepared in line with international law and approved by the UN Security Council. “But it is up to me and other world leaders to persuade Russia and China to find a solution that does not call for a military intervention,” he explained.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague attempted to put pressure on Russia. He called upon this Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow to make sure that the plan of the UN special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, be fulfilled.

Kyiv has also made public its attitude to the situation in Syria. “There can be no excuse for this barbaric massacre of people, no matter who the organizer was. We demand that the government of Syria investigate, together with the international community, into the causes of the tragedy and bring to justice those guilty of civilian deaths. We confirm our full support for the mission of the UN and Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan and are calling on all the sides to abide by the plan to resolve the Syrian crisis,” says the statement posted on the Ukraine Foreign Ministry’s website.

The Day asked Ihor SEMYVOLOS, executive director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, to comment on the latest events in and around Syria.

“This demarche will cause no essential changes. There must be some radical moves, a turning point of sorts. Yet it may seem in the future that the current events were precisely the turning point. Only then will we be able to speak about the downfall of the regime. If this does not happen, the regime will still have a certain margin of safety. When a civil war is going on, it is very difficult, frankly speaking, to say what is really happening, especially in the [Syrian] conditions. We can say what will happen in the end, but it is very difficult to predict the course of events in the middle.”

What will happen in the end?

“What will happen in the end is the downfall of the regime, a complicated situation, and, maybe, disintegration.”

And what factors are responsible for how long the Assad regime may hold out: the extent to which the West will be tough in trying to overthrow it or the position of Russia which is so far putting no pressure on Syria?

“Any authoritarian regime is hierarchical, and its strength usually depends on the extent to which every unit of this hierarchy is prepared to perform its functions – in other words, on the extent to which these units are prepared to trust each other and obey orders to the end. If even one of these units crumbles, so will the regime. It is sort of a formula for any authoritarian regime. The Syrian leadership has so far managed to keep this situation in check – also owing to the fact that the army is being dispersed to a high degree. This means the military units are formed in a way that precludes any mutiny in one unit or another. The regime has thus protected itself from active interference of the military into politics. Besides, they have a system of commissars and controllers, which secures the regime against a coup d’etat. What is also playing a serious role is the ethno-religious component. It is clear to everybody that any change or transformation in a county like this may sooner or later result in ethnic cleansings. The regime’s key task now is to retain this hierarchy of the security system. But the more the events unfold, the more difficult it becomes to do so because this requires tapping the dwindling resources. These resources are already insufficient for maintaining the security hierarchy and providing the populace with a minimum that allows the authorities to control the situation. The Assad regime is gradually losing these assets.”

The Russian Vedomosti says that the call of the British foreign secretary for the Kremlin to exert pressure on Syria still remains a call and Russia will stick to its line, for Moscow is not interested in Syria becoming an Islamic caliphate. Do you think this scenario is possible in Syria?

“A caliphate is out of the question. But the problem is that Sunnites seem to be more motivated and passionate during a civil war. It is quite possible that, in the conditions of a war, Islam begins to play an ever greater role. When people are constantly afraid of death, it is very important for them to find some comfort and a higher motivation for what they are fighting and are ready to die. So it is a very important factor. The role of religion increases in any war. Naturally, the role of Islam will be on the rise here. But even before, Islam had played an important role in rallying people together. In Syria, there are groups that favor secularism as well as ones that speak out from the positions of Islam. Obviously, the continuing war will be increasing the role of Islam. It is quite possible that, after the defeat of Assad, power will be taken by the Islamists, but this undoubtedly should not be interpreted as the establishment of a caliphate. We can see this in Egypt, Turkey, and many other secular states, where the Islamists are playing a serious role. But they came to power by way of a democratic procedure and are interested in these democratic ways remaining intact. For example, in Turkey democratic procedures are working in favor of the Islamists in their face-off with the authoritarian military. I would not like to paint Islam in one color only because, in reality, it is an intricate ideology with a lot of Islamist ramifications that range from moderate to radical.”

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made an important statement about the events in Syria, which condemns the use of heavy artillery and tanks against the civilians of the Syrian town of al-Houla. What side do you think Ukraine should take in the Syria question: to join, as it has often done before, the position of the European Union or to take a special stance, while watching the reaction of Russia?

“In the case of Libya, for example, Ukraine dragged its feet to the last moment. I will not comment on why this happened and who was interested in it. We recognized the Transitional National Council only after the Russians had done so, when Tripoli had fallen. As for Syria, Ukraine is taking a more flexible stand. At least, we have joined the ‘club of the friends of the Syrian people.’ Many signals of this kind show that Ukraine is now taking a far more flexible attitude to the Syrian conflict. The Ukrainian foreign ministry is trying to keep its hand on the pulse or at least not to fall out of the context. I can see this, and it is a real change compared to the Libya story.”

Is Ukraine going to lose very much from changes in Syria or, on the contrary, new prospects will open up for our country after the downfall of the Assad regime?

“I don’t think so. In principle, Ukraine and Syria maintain one of the best trade turnovers. So, on the one hand, there is a sensation that we can lose something after the change of regime, on the other hand, as far as I know, the main Ukrainian players on the Syrian market will not change, and even if they do change, somebody else will fill this niche. It is on them that the current commodity turnover and interest in continuing cooperation depend. So I do not think that the change of regime will seriously impair Ukrainian interests in Syria. But to what extent we will be able to increase the trade turnover remains a question, for we will have to make efforts in addition to the ones we are making now.”