Syria Gets Complicated
A three-member “Independent International Commission of Inquiry” appointed by the United Nations concluded on February 23 that “gross human rights violations” had been ordered by the Syrian authorities as state policy at “the highest levels of the armed forces and the government,” amounting to “crimes against humanity.” The 72-page document thus provides the potential basis for Bashar al-Assad’s indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The panel presented the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights with a sealed envelope containing the names of Syrian officials who should be “investigated,” but those names remain secret. The U.N. did not specify who these investigating authorities might be, but that we know: on June 27th—three months into NATO’s air war on the side of rebel forces—the ICC presented intervening powers with a veneer of legitimacy by issuing a warrant for Muammar Qaddafy’s arrest. The latest U.N. report seems deliberately crafted to provide a future ad-hoc “coalition” with an upfront justification for a military intervention in Syria, also based on “the responsibility to protect” doctrine which was invoked in the Libyan case. In view of the Russian and Chinese veto, a regional coalition may cite this principle in order to attack Syria without the U.N. Security Council mandate.
Unsurprisingly, the language of the U.N. Syria report closely resembles the ICC warrant against the late Libyan leader. The U.N. report says: “A reliable body of evidence exists that, consistent with other verified circumstances, provides reasonable grounds to believe that particular individuals, including commanding officers and officials at the highest levels of government, bear responsibility for crimes against humanity and other gross human rights violations.” In Libya, the ICC said, “State policy was designed at the highest level of the state machinery, and aimed at quelling by any means, including by the use of lethal force, demonstrations of civilians against the regime… The evidence establishes reasonable grounds to believe [Qaddafy and his associates] are guilty of crimes against humanity.”
The UN report is politically motivated. Western estimates based on “opposition” sources—almost certainly as exaggerated as the much-touted figure of “200,000 Bosnian dead”—claim that the insurgency in Syria took between 5,400 and 8,000 lives over the past year. By contrast, neighboring Turkey’s ongoing “dirty war against the Kurds” has killed more than 40,000 people over the years, including 35 civilians slain in a single Turkish air raid against the separatist PKK last December. Ankara’s intensification of indiscriminate attacks on Kurdish targets reflects a major shift by the Islamist AKP regime away from negotiations. No U.N. report has been commissioned thus far to investigate possible crimes against humanity in Turkey, however, and none is likely any time soon. NATO’s only Muslim member-country is the key conduit for arms, supplies, money and men—including Western intelligence agents, members of various special forces’ units and training instructors—helping Syrian rebels, or else fomenting rebellion where it is currently absent.
The insurgency in Syria is a low-intensity conflict by comparison. At fewer than 500 deaths per month—even if we accept the most frequently cited rebel estimate as reliable, which it is not—it is far less lethal than the chaos in Libya (up to 30,000 deaths between March 2 and September 8, 2011), or the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq and its aftermath (anywhere between 109,000 and 601,000 deaths to date). On this form, it is certain that the toll in Syria will skyrocket if there is a foreign intervention. Its intricate sectarian and clannish divisions—which remain deep and visible in the ranks of anti-government forces—would ensure a Hobbesian free-for-all if the regime is removed by external force.
The awareness of such possibility, reinforced by the frightening example of Iraq next door and the recent call to anti-government jihad by Al-Qaeda, is one of Assad’s strongest trump cards. It assures the loyalty not only of some 26 percent of Syrians who are not Sunni Muslims—Alawites, Christians, and Iraqi refugees of all faiths and denominations remain solidly pro-regime, as do most Druze and Kurds—but also of many secular, middle class Sunnis who do not cherish the prospect of a bloodbath or the probability of the Muslim Brotherhood emerging victorious in its aftermath. All of these groups have felt secure under Assad and his father and have ample reason to fear his downfall. It is likely that the ranks of media-invisible government supporters, millions of people who go about their daily business without fuss and try to stay out of trouble, constitute Syria’s “quiet majority.” It is probable that they far exceed the numbers of committed enemies of the regime, which is why we have not witnessed a fully-fledged “popular uprising” thus far.
Syria is not Libya for another important reason: Government security forces and the army retain their coherence and operational effectiveness. Defections to the rebels, which were heralded in the Western media last fall as the beginning of the end of the regime, are but sporadic. Morale and discipline remain high, especially considering the pressures of the past year. The government has not unleashed anything near its full firepower against the rebels—neither aircraft nor ground-to-ground missiles have been used to date. Assad is well aware that a significantly higher death toll is exactly what the proponents of intervention in Washington desire as a means of stepping up their pressure for American military involvement. On the other hand, the rebel “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) is largely a phantom force unable to conduct complex operations and devoid of clearly defined political objectives beyond removing Assad, which it is manifestly unable to achieve without foreign intervention.
Last but not least, having seen the misuse of the limited UN mandate by the Western powers in Libya, Russia and China will continue to block any Security Council resolution which could be creatively interpreted by the U.S. as authorization to intervene. An undeclared proxy war is under way, but Assad only has the Turkish border to worry about. Iraq supports him, which is unsurprising considering the influence of Iran—Syria’s major foreign backer—on the government in Baghdad. Israel is having second thoughts on the possibility of regime change in Damascus, and the 1973 ceasefire line in the Golan Heights remains one of the most peaceful spots in the Middle East. Lebanon is dominated by pro-Syrian Shiite factions, and Jordan has been notably lukewarm to U.S. pressures to open desert infiltration routes from the southeast.
The regime of Bashar al-Assad is in some trouble, but it is not in any immediate danger of collapsing; if there is no foreign intervention it may survive. Of course, a Markale-like stage-managed stunt prompting media-pack hysteria here and in Western Europe may yet change the equation. If you have to go to Syria, avoid crowded public places.
Entries(RSS)
Adnan al Arour, the spiritual leader of the Wahhabi's violent uprising in Syria, said that all the Alawites should be chopped into pieces and fed to the dogs.
By contrast, the Syrian regime never even called for any similar mass execution of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and never displayed any intentions to do so.
As soon as I heard that Clinton carlin on the radio, referring to Russia and China in that unbearable Midwest braying tone, the one female professionals use to intimidate their male counterparts, I went solidly against any American involvement in Syria. Let's see how well our bomber broads can push Putin around.
Mr. Jacobi, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone describe that voix immonde as well as you just did. Why on Earth are the neocons pushing for a regime change in November? The Obama administration is their own perverse dream come to life! Clinton is not surprisingly oblivious to the murders her husband instigated in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, but it's anyone's guess as to how and why she thinks to contain Russia and China with her current boss pursuing the same policies that, with her hubby's blessing, have empowered those countries entirely at the expense of the working and middling American people.
You couldn't make a movie about this: it's got all the character believability and down-to-Earth atmosphere of an Oliver Stome flick. And yet this is real life. I may have to reconsider my take on what as recently as last week I criticized as Stone's lack of subtlety.
Sean Ali Stone ethnically Jewish, baptized Christian, just converted to Islam I read on another site; he's Oliver Stone's son. That might be an interesting hybrid if he plucks out what may be best from each of the three traditions, and leaves behind what each of their liabilities may be. An impossible task that would be since the respective religions undoubtedly have each of their unique peoples in their appropriate relationship with the divine and presumably vice versa.
But in this example at hand there's that characteristic endemic lack of Stone-subtlety you might be referring to Mr. Moses?
In the Liberal West with its aggrandizement of the so-called individual especially at the expense of the group (that seems to be its sine qua non) for the past few hundred years ongoing. I suppose it's neither surprising there aren't yet both Anti-Defamation of Caucasians and Anti-Defamation of Christians Leagues in the West, nor that Sean would imagine even greater inflation of the notion of the individual [himself] becoming all things to all people as the universal-individual would be the remedy for today's liberal sponsored exacerbation of disharmony among the three religions. Apparently then Sean doesn't realize he's wildly shooting for more of the same and yet even more of it, in his therefore misdirected aim at subtlety?
Are you thinking to yourself of course that's the given why bother stating it? I don't know, perhaps merely to underscore it. -?-
The rumors about Sean Stone are apparently untrue, according to the man himself, though it wouldn't surprise me if he had declared himself a "convert to Islam" as a fad for a day or so (that's how they do things in Hollywood, as you are aware), regardless of how deep his convictions are. (By the way, Oliver Stone was born to a Jewish father and a Catholic French mother and raised Anglican as a compromise. Sean's mother's maiden name is Burkit Cox, so Sean is in all probability no more than 25 percent Jewish.)
To answer your question, though, I was referring to Stone's films: the consciously and unhidden predations of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, Jim Garrison's melodramatic political evolution and dedication to abstract justice in JFK. Stone and his characters have a thing about making their points with sledgehammers: it's not so much that said points are so far removed from reality as that they are delivered in such a heavy-handed manner as to make one wonder whether they are not in fact parodies of subversive films of the past.
Yet when one watches Hillary Clinton speak out on Russia and China or scans Janet Napolitano's warning about an upcoming right-wing paramilitarism, one feels almost as though they are themselves are reading some of the more ridiculous lines from a Stone script. I conclude that Stone's films are no more a parody of subversive political films than contemporary American politics is a parody of politics itself.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Stone has his head screwed on straight, but his line of thought isn't totally of the mark - far from it. (He did say that he would vote for Ron Paul over Barak Obama, so he can't be all bad in my book.)
A three-member “Independent International Commission of Inquiry” appointed by the United Nations concluded on February 23 that “gross human rights violations” had been ordered by the Syrian authorities as state policy at “the highest levels of the armed forces and the government,” amounting to “crimes against humanity.”
Human Rights: “The ideology of human rights is above all strategically used to disarm European peoples, by making them feel guilty about almost everything. . . . The ideology of human rights is the principal weapon being used today to destroy Europe’s identity and to advance the interests of her alien colonisers.” – Guillaume Faye
Humanitarianism: “The metaphysical unity of the human race imposes an obligation to help the ‘Other,’ rather than one’s own kind.” – Guillaume Faye
The promulgation of such false values in the West suggested by 'the metaphysical unity of the human race' in Faye's quote in fact is perpetuated by those who only feel guilty about not helping their own first in normal preference over the other, and part of that helping of one's own is to make sure everyone else is helping one's own as well. However this normal intent of the subset group to manipulate the larger body to its own advantage undoubtedly gets a good bit of assistance from the wrong turns the West took prior, such as the delusional aggrandizement of the importance of the so-called individual in comparison to his own group. Otherwise how else can the wholesale selling out of one's own people by their leaders, be explained nation by nation in all those member nations in the European Union; as well as in the U.S. today. I know this is old ground recently trod and retrod especially over the past decade, just to add this seems like one of those times or epochs in history, what the past hundred years or so when in terms of the normal truth Mr. Jacobi seems stranger than fiction? Also Mr. Moses I agree with you in my 'book' too, it seems Oliver Stone may have some remaining salutary instincts still intact. Good to hear it was only rumor about his son Sean. Perhaps even the strange has some limits as well as everything else.
What on earth keeps those Kurds going in Turkey..?
Speaking of Madame C, the Celebrity Secretary of Foggy Bottom, who writes her speeches anyway? Every word that comes out of that mendacious trap of hers is a cliche'.
By the way, it's interesting that a sort of Westernized regime in Syria is less favoured by the Western governments than the regime in Saudi Arabia, which is far from Western.
I am reminded of how Patrick Buchanan explained that the Kaiser in Germany was always eager to please the British and earn their acceptance by trying to prove that Germany too could be of British standards. None of the eased British suspicions about pre-WW1 Germany and relations remained cool.
It's also akin to how the Japanese placed foreign educated or pro-American officials in top positions in order to gain trust of Americans, but still faced embargoes and the like from Americans.
The worst thing one can do to gain favour of the Western governments is to pander to them or adopt Western values. Maybe the Serbians will have better luck with America if they become an Orthodox version of Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Sanjay excellent points in my opinion. Since the wrong turns of the West into false values even when popular, and subsequently away from the normal human classical foundation and what was built upon it for the first thousand years after Rome's fall. There now is inevitably an undercurrent in the West of a lack of selfrespect. So, ironically, acceed to the West "as is" and the self-hate gets projected out at the new member. May I refer to you as Dr. Sanjay since you seem to have taken the accurate pulse of the patient in the present. (Sorry, humor, thank heavens for that.)..occasionally.
Mr. Sanjay, consistency in foreign relations has never been a strong virtue of the U.S. However, leaving the admittedly numerous violations of the Monroe doctrine aside for a moment, in what way can Syria be described as Westernized? Might it be their support for the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Could it be as proxy for Iran? If Westernized means packing clothes and making phone calls for a short trip; why did Syria make no calls or pack a single thing for the long journey to Westernized? Sorry, I just don't see it. To be specific, the 'tolerance' of Bashar Assad towards some small religious sects is not 'Westernized' tolerance. It is a minority ruler's survival mechanism. And, your references to the German Kaiser and Japan are misplaced and irrelevant. But that is not important. Your point that the worst thing to do is appease the West is interesting because I can't dredge up any examples of that happening. I think a better understanding of recent Western interventions in the ME can be reached by describing them as the rash, ill-conceived actions of ideologues. You know, nation building and such. Appeasement, if any, is merely incidental. Next, the Saudis are certainly serious about their religion and they inspire and fund terrorists. But they also sit on lots of oil, play ball with the West in many ways, counterbalance Iran and will not invade their neighbors. What, you want perfection? Finally, the Serbs converting to Orthodox Sunni Islam. Who would care?
Kurds in Iraq?