THORNS OF SYRIA

The situation in Syria is becoming more and more critical. The key question of the moment is whether there will be military intervention from the outside (directly or indirectly) in the domestic Syrian process. Meanwhile, an action is unfolding around the intrigue, containing not only the Syrian component, but also a number of other conflicting points that are the focus of the entire world community's attention.

Three approaches and one resolution

Syria, in fact, is immersed in civil war. The epicentre of the protest movement is the city of Homs, where real hostilities are under way between government troops and opposition forces. Moreover, the significant superiority of the former (numerically and militarily) leads to mass casualties among the inhabitants of the city. In general, according to the UN, by February 2012, more than five thousand people had been killed since the beginning of mass protests in Syria. Damascus, on the other hand, places the responsibility for the civilian deaths on "armed militants".

Meanwhile, international pressure on the government of Bashar al-Assad has become one of the most important factors in the Syrian crisis. The West openly calls for the resignation of the president of Syria, accusing him of violence against his own people. "Al-Assad must stop the killings. He must leave immediately and hand over power to a democratic government," President Barack Obama said.

The anti-Assad rhetoric of the US and other Western countries was not watered down by the referendum on amending the constitution held in Syria on 26 February. The new Syrian constitution abolishes the Baath Party's monopoly on power, enshrines a multiparty system, guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens and defines Syria as a "democratic state". Damascus calls the new Basic Law a step into "a new era", hoping that its adoption will help to find a way out of the domestic political crisis and lead the country out of the impasse. However, the US called the referendum "a pointless step".

The West tried hard to secure the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution proposed by the League of Arab States (LAS). The issue is about the transfer of power from Bashar al-Assad to the vice-president in exchange for a waiver of prosecution. But the adoption of this plan is opposed by Russia and China, who vetoed the UN Security Council resolution on Syria. In particular, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the proposed version of the resolution does not exclude the possibility of foreign interference in Syrian affairs. In addition, according to Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, Vitaliy Churkin, "the draft resolution that was put to a vote does not adequately reflect the realities prevailing in Syria", because it blames what is happening on one side of the confrontation - the Damascus government.

Russia's position was harshly criticized by the United States. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was impossible to work constructively with Russia on the Syrian resolution.

Dissatisfaction with the position of Moscow and Beijing was also expressed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who noted that the Russian and Chinese veto on the resolution on Syria undermines the image of the global organization. He expressed "deep regret" over the failure of the Security Council "at a time when the Syrian authorities should be hearing one voice calling for an immediate end to violence against the people of Syria".

Russia, for its part, made its own attempt to secure a solution to the crisis, which is why Syria was visited by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Mikhail Fradkov. However, the agreement they reached during their meetings with Bashar al-Assad, under which the latter agreed to start a dialogue with the opposition, was an empty word and did not bring forward a peaceful settlement of the internal Syrian conflict.

Proponents of increasing pressure on Damascus responded by adopting a UN General Assembly resolution. The document calls on al-Assad to resign and strongly condemns human rights violations by his regime. The resolution, prepared by the Arab League with support from the US and the EU, was backed by 137 of the 193 member countries of the General Assembly. Twelve countries voted against it, while 17 more delegations attending the meeting abstained. Among the countries that voted against the resolution were the same Russia and China.

In essence, the international influence on the Syrian crisis suggests three options for the development of the situation. The West insists that the international community must use all diplomatic and economic levers of pressure on Damascus to get it to end the siege of the rebellious cities. At the same time, Western leaders are not openly talking about the possibility of providing military support to the Syrian opposition. Supporters of a more radical approach, namely the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf, disagree with this and suggest arming the Syrian opposition and giving it any support, including financial and intelligence. Moreover, the leadership of Qatar stated, for example, that foreign military interference in Syrian affairs is not such a bad idea. The Arab League adopted a resolution requesting the dispatch of an international peacekeeping mission to Syria. Obviously, this approach, in essence, means the development of events in Syria according to the Libyan scenario, in the implementation of which the same Qatar played a significant role, becoming the vanguard of the pro-American policy in the region.

In contrast to these options, there is a Russian-Chinese approach, which is that the parties to the Syrian conflict need to sit at the negotiating table. Foreign intervention, according to Moscow and Beijing, will only harm the stabilization of the situation in Syria. But the problem is that no one, including Russia and China, has a clear idea of how to force the al-Assad government and the Syrian opposition to talk to each other. Accordingly, such an approach, if we take the prevention of external interference as a basis, in fact, may result in the suppression of the considerably weak side by the stronger party to the conflict. That is why it is unacceptable to the West and its Arab allies that have embarked on the path of increasing pressure on the stronger side - President al-Assad, especially as, after the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, he is the last Arab leader whose policy is contrary to the interests of Euro-Atlanticism.

"Friends" set a "big price"

The growing pressure of interested external forces on al-Assad's regime is proven by the Friends of Syria international conference held in Tunisia on 24 February. The decision to hold the forum was taken at a meeting of foreign ministers of the Arab League. However, it is no secret that the main initiator of the meeting of opponents of the Syrian regime was the United States. Even the phrase "Friends of Syria" was first mentioned by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (although French President Nicolas Sarkozy argues that he was the first to come up with such a description of opponents of Bashar al-Assad).

The conference was attended by representatives of 60 countries (most Arab countries, Turkey, USA and many European countries) and international and regional organizations. They justified the usefulness of the meeting by the failure to secure a UN decision to end the violence in Syria, as well as by their own willingness to take some action, in particular, to support the Syrian opposition.

Russia and China, as expected, refused to participate in this conference. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that "the real focus of this initiative was not clear". In addition, Moscow complained, "some opposition groups were invited to Tunisia, while representatives of the Syrian government were not invited to the conference. This means that the interests of a large segment of the Syrian population, which supports the authorities, will not be represented."

Nevertheless, Russia was repeatedly mentioned at the forum, and not only from a critical, but purely practical point of view. Tunisian President Moncef Al-Marzouki offered to provide the Syrian leader, his family and members of the regime with judicial immunity and the opportunity to find refuge in Russia. The final statement of the Friends of Syria says: "We call for an immediate end to all forms of violence in Syria, which will allow access to humanitarian aid, and support the adoption of additional sanctions against the regime."

In essence, the decision of the Friends of Syria means a "black mark" for Bashar al-Assad, which should leave no doubt about the determination of the West to end his reign despite the obstacles created by Russia and China. It is no accident that in unison with the statements voiced in Tunisia, US President Barack Obama openly expressed his willingness to use all tools of pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in order to force him to resign. Secretary of State Clinton, speaking at the conference, warned al-Assad that he will pay a "heavy price" if he ignores the will of the international community. To start with, the state secretary called upon all countries participating in the conference to ban the entry of senior officials of al-Assad's regime from entering their territory, freeze their assets, impose an embargo on Syrian oil supplies, stop investing in this country and consider closing Syrian embassies and consulates.

Meanwhile, ahead of the conference, a group of US senators urged the White House to begin delivering weapons to the Syrian opposition. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham outlined a detailed plan to support the opposition, stressing that the US does not need a UN resolution to this effect. According to McCain, US military cargoes can be handed over to the opposition in Syria "through third countries" or the League of Arab States.

The most remarkable thing in the senators' statement is that they are confident that direct support for the opposition will not only change the regime in Syria, but also weaken Iran's position in the region. "Any actions that can divide Syria and Iran are extremely important in order to halt Tehran's nuclear programme," Graham said. "Without the support of Damascus, the Iranian government will have no allies left in the region, and hence, the world will be able to breathe easily."

The link between the Syrian crisis and the West's resolve to undermine the potential of Iran, as one of the main centres of the anti-Western movement in the world, is obvious enough. According to The Christian Science Monitor, the confrontation in Syria is rapidly bringing forward the time of the Israeli attack on Iran. The inability of the international community to resolve the Syrian crisis by diplomatic means gives a clear signal that Iran's nuclear programme cannot be stopped at the negotiating table. After all, the Russian and Chinese veto on the Syrian resolution at the UN Security Council inspired confidence in Iran that the global organization will achieve no consensus on a possible strike on Iran. Therefore, Tehran will have no incentive to compromise with the West, which, however, will only foster Israel's military ambitions. "If a civil war starts in Syria (which is very likely), Israel might take advantage of the growing instability as a cover or an excuse for active action, especially as the Security Council has demonstrated its incapacity," says a former employee of the US Mission to the UN, Michael Doyle.

Meanwhile, the developments in Southwest Asia, the epicentre of which is Syria (while Iran is likely to become such in the foreseeable future), reveal another line of division among the world powers. We are talking about the growing confrontation between the West and Russia. The problem is also very relevant due to Vladimir Putin's expected return to the Kremlin. But that is another subject of discussion.