SYRIA AT THE CROSSROADS

The civil conflict has ceased to be just internal or regional. The unstable situation in Syria has also led to polarization among the world powers. The situation in this Middle Eastern country is such that it is no longer possible to speak about stability in the future whether the Asad regime is overthrown or remains in power.

By the end of the first week in March government troops had dealt a crushing blow to the rebels, taking the town of Homs, the main districts of which had up to now been controlled by anti-government groups. According to the media, government troops in Homs were meeting the resistance of 300 French legionnaires. There are still pockets of resistance in the town, but it is already clear that the government has now taken control of the situation.

In defeat, opposition forces are blaming western countries, the so-called "friends of Syria", for a lack of support, whereas the latter, for their part, blame the opposition for insufficient coordination and their different views on Syria's future after Asad and the absence of an obvious leader.

There is, indeed, chaos and uncertainty in the opposition camp. Whereas in the case of Libya this was a war between eastern and western tribes, in Syria the ethnic and religious mosaic does not allow opponents of the regime to elect themselves as leader or choose a specific action programme.

It would seem that Asad, by taking advantage of the differences within the political and military opposition, is switching to a counter-offensive to stay in power. The Syrian president is trying to gain time for two reasons. One is so that he can gradually restore his positions with the aid of military force, as happened in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s in those provinces where the anti-Asad forces are mainly based. And the second reason is to restore legitimacy by political means, i.e. through reforms. Although the EU foreign ministers described the referendum on adopting a new Constitution on 26 February as a "grim farce" and a "backward step", it should be pointed out that even if Asad remains in power Syria's political system will not be the same as it was before.

Many of the president's opponents will categorically not agree to a repeat of the Libyan or Iraqi scenario in Syria. Most Syrians do not like the West any more than they like Asad, which in the long run plays into their hands. Armed clashes in the main are confined to provinces that are populated by Sunni Arabs, so it would be wrong to assert that there is unrest throughout the country. Christians and Druze are in the main loyal to the incumbent president because Asad is trying to portray his opponents as adherents to radical-fundamental Islam which, of course, is partially true. As far as the Kurds in the north of the country are concerned, in recent months they have been showing more loyalty than at the outset of the civil unrest. The reason for this may be the "near autonomy" offered them by the Asad regime. Today the Kurds have the right to control roads in the north of the country, to set up and defend control points and also enjoy other bureaucratic privileges.

International confusion

In the international arena one can also see confusion and a lack of clarity in the approaches of individual countries and international organizations towards a solution to the Syrian question. In his various statements US President Barack Obama has said that "at the moment there is no simple solution to the problem of Syria". Ruling out a repeat of the scenario of NATO military intervention, as happened in Libya, the US president expressed the opinion that Asad's departure as Syrian president was a question of time because he had lost legitimacy.

In this connection the ruling circles in the US are calling on Russia and China to help overthrow Asad. "After the veto was imposed on the UN Security Council resolution, we want to see Russia and the PRC on the side of the Syrian people; these countries must stop the bloodshed and exert influence on Bashar Asad and the Syrian authorities," US State Department spokesman Victoria Newland said. In her opinion, "the only meaningful reform and dialogue will be for Asad to hand over power from his family to the people". A Syrian opposition dialogue is possible only with those "who currently rule Syria but whose hands are soaked in blood". Thus, Newland made it clear that the main thing as far as America is concerned is to overthrow the Asad family and that they were not against dealing with someone else in government circles.

However, the Syrian opposition rejected a proposal by Kofi Annan, the special emissary of the UN and the Arab League (LAS), to enter into a dialogue with the Asad government, noting that talks with the government were unrealistic and pointless while opposition people continued to be murdered. At a meeting with Annan in Damascus, the Syrian president, for his part, having described the armed opposition as terrorists, said this: "A political dialogue or political moves cannot be successful whilst armed groups of terrorists are bringing chaos and destabilizing the situation."

Meanwhile, by all accounts, the positions of Russia and the Arab states with regard to Syria have become closer. The principles of a settlement to the Syrian crisis, that were agreed on 10 March in Cairo by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his colleagues from the LAS member-countries, apart from support for Annan's efforts, also include: an end to the violence on all sides, an impartial mechanism for monitoring the situation in the country, a policy of non-interference from outside and unobstructed access to humanitarian aid for all Syrians. Granted, the Arab countries, which saw Asad as an enemy, previously favoured military support for the Syrian opposition. The most radical opponents of Asad among the Arab countries are Qatar and Saudi Arabia - traditional enemies of Iran which sees Syria as its last and only stronghold in the Near East.

Another important player in the Middle East arena is Israel, which is currently adopting a wait-and-see attitude. On the one hand, Israel has a vested interest in overthrowing Asad, attributing to him official Damascus' close ties with "Hezbollah" and Tehran. Apart from this, despite the unstable peace between the two countries, Asad has more than once spoken about his wish for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. In connection with this, his departure from the post of president and the coming to power of someone like Burhan Galion, of course, meets Israel's interests. But, on the other hand, instead of a pro-Israeli politician Asad's post could be taken by a protege of the radical Islamists. It is natural to assume that the emergence on its borders of another aggressively-minded enemy would be extremely undesirable for Israel.

It would appear that Turkey is in the most difficult position since the start of the crisis in Syria. Ankara is urging Asad to stand down as president. Bearing in mind the problems that Turkey has faced by not supporting the West's military invasion of Iraq in 2003, this time she is trying to play the role of the centre of the anti-Asad coalition. But her desire to be first violin in the region may present unforeseen surprises. So, bearing in mind the recent activities of the PKK terrorists, Turkey is risking another danger zone on its southern borders. With the Kurds having won their independence in Iraq, the strengthening of their positions in Syria, too, puts Turkey in a rather precarious situation.

Turkey is one of the co-chairmen of the "friends of Syria" group which are actively fighting to bring down the Asad regime. The ideological inspiration behind this organization is the French President N. Sarkozy. Having received a huge share from oil contracts following Muammar Qadhafi's overthrow in Libya, France is trying its utmost to recover its historic geo-political interests in this region. It is not by chance that many Syrian opposition leaders in exile are currently in this country. Sarkozy makes no secret of the fact that he is in favour of military interference in Syria, but only if there is a UN Security Council resolution to this effect. Other EU member-countries are against bringing troops into Syria. For example, in the opinion of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, "large-scale shooting should be avoided as this could lead to tragic consequences for the country and the whole of the world".

Possible scenarios

What could be the consequences of the overthrow of Asad, bearing in mind the actions of the leading world and regional powers?

The first option is ethnic, inter-religious conflicts turning into a civil war like the clashes between the Sunnis and Shiites, as well as the Arabs and Kurds in Iraq after 2003. There were similar clashes in neighbouring Lebanon from 1975 to 1990. In Syria there will probably be a clash between the Alawites, who are in power, and the Sunni majority in the country, similar to the confrontation between the Arabs and the Kurds in Kamishly in 2004.

The second option for a solution to the situation is the political instability and weakness of a government that is fraught with the vulnerability of a country to outside interference. The lack of a strong central power will allow each political movement or social group to gain the support of foreign players to strengthen their own position within the country. In other words, the vacuum created by the weakness of the authorities may be filled by foreign powers.

Third, the current situation could lead to a manifestation of federalism and also the loss of Syria's territorial integrity. Here, Iraq, where after the American intervention in the north of the country the Kurds virtually legalized separatism, could serve as a very vivid example. Having almost completely broken away from official Baghdad, the Iraqi Kurds are putting forward territorial claims to Iraq's central regions. In Syria, though, federalism has an historic past and today it may be said that there are socio-political conditions for its restoration. During the time of the French mandate in 1920-1941 Syria was divided into several separate territories: the Kingdom of Damascus, the Kingdom of Aleppo, the Alawi State and the Druze State.

And, finally, illegal armed formations and terrorist organizations to counterbalance the regular army could emerge. Looking at Lebanon, one may say with confidence that at the present time "Hezbollah" is far superior to the country's national army in both strength and power. In the case with Iraq, the Kurdish "Peshmerge" military forces could serve as an example, although they are considered to be a semi-legal formation. There are also illegal military Shiite brigades like the "Badr" group which controls a considerable part of the country's southern territory.