Stark choices for Syria

The choice in Syria should not be between dictatorship and terrorism, the French defence minister was quoted as saying during his visit to Qatar earlier this week.

That is absolutely right. The missing element in this wise assessment, though, is that such a choice, however problematic, is not on offer.

Many of the tears pouring these days over the misery that has befallen Syria and its people are shed by the very people who largely contributed to the catastrophe and mess that opened Syria to dictatorship and terrorism at the same time.

In a recent discussion of the Syrian dilemma, by way of prioritising, I suggested that Daesh — the so-called Islamic State — should be dealt with first, even if that meant allowing the regime in Syria to stay in place, perhaps transitionally and on condition of implementing major political reform, to prevent the possibility of Syria collapsing completely, like Somalia.

I was sternly reminded that the Syrian people alone should make such a decision. This also is perfectly true, except that something important in this disingenuous claim is missing too.

Right from the very beginning, the Syrian people were not left alone to decide their own destiny when some of them rose peacefully against the dictatorship demanding political reform, representative government and dignity. 

Regional, as well as international interventions, which included the dispatch of terrorist groups into Syria, recruiting, training, arming and financing them, has plunged the country into the conflict that continues to rage, destroy, shatter and devastate.

US Vice President Joe Biden was right when he named some of the countries which helped the rise of Daesh, but under pressure he had to quickly retract his statement and to apologise to those mentioned in his blunt revelation by name. 

His only real error was to omit the leading role his own country played in orchestrating the effort.

Neither in Syria nor anywhere in this world would anyone in his right mind choose dictatorship as a system of government. 

Few of those who were spending billions arming the extremist militias, the jihadists, the outright terrorists and mercenaries, supposedly to topple the dictatorship in Syria, were known for being recognised liberal democracies themselves.

The fact that the foreign powers that rushed to ostensibly rescue the Syrian people from the dictatorial regime were in fact working closely with other regional dictatorships cast enormous doubt on the authenticity of their unholy mission.

Yes, it is true that the choice for Syria is not and should not be between dictatorship and terror. 

The ideal choice, if it were a matter of intellectual exercise, would be a stable, progressive and secure democracy.

Sadly, the reality tells a different story.

After almost four years of illegal and damaging foreign interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state, Syria has been reduced to political and material rubble, and the entire region now stands seriously threatened by the many terrorist groups that turned against those who financed and nurtured them.

The “Islamic State” which is neither Islamic nor a state, has now managed to spread quite substantially into Iraq, and is seen to pose a major threat to the entire region.

For months now, a coalition of more than 50 countries could not liberate the territories Daesh managed to conquer in Iraq on top of the areas already under its control in Syria.

Apparently, the coalition members are not all united behind a defined strategy, with some demanding that any war on Daesh not provide the Assad regime with any political benefit.

Others in this coalition seem to be more pragmatic. They do not see the available choice as being between the good and the bad, rather they see it as a choice between the bad and the worse.

The bad would in this case be some kind of coordination with the Syrian government that allows Syrian forces to join the war on Daesh and other foreign militias fighting in Syria to clear the country of chaos and to restore order.

Once done, the Assad regime would be allowed to continue, but with a credible and substantial political reform programme, reconciliation with the national opposition and general amnesty, guaranteed by Syria’s allies, Russia and Iran who should also be part of such an arrangement.

That is the bad.

The worse, in the view of the pragmatists, would be either to continue to arm and support the “moderate” opposition, which would only prolong the conflict indefinitely, or topple the regime and open the entire land of Syria to fighting militias, with unknown consequences for Syria and the region.

There is no question that the Assad regime does not deserve to be rewarded, and that should not be the intention. Bad policies, ill-advised interventions, malicious conspiracies and chronic unresolved conflicts, of which the Arab-Israeli is most prominent, led to the rise of a major crisis.

Needed are emergency solutions to check the advancing danger as a first measure. 

Once some kind of regional order is restored, long-term remedial measures can patiently and objectively be introduced.