This article first appeared on the Arabist.
According to Reuters, the Syrian National Council and the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria – the two largest opposition coalitions in Syria – signed on the last Friday of 2011 a unity pledge that “reject[s] any military intervention that harms the sovereignty or stability of the country, though Arab intervention is not considered foreign.” However, remarks delivered to the U.S. and Israeli press by a Council spokesman seem to contradict the Council’s stated support for the new joint policy.
The rejection of (Western) military intervention is a significant concession on the part of the Syrian National Council – the smaller, more diaspora-oriented of the two main coalitions – as the Council had been calling for NATO to enforce a no-fly zone (“Safe Area for Syria“). The Council’s representatives have compared the situation in Syria to that in Libya (as such, it is not surprising that the transitional government in Libya is the only foreign government to have formally recognized the Council). Those analyzing the feasibility and costs of such intervention argue that Syria’s extensive air defense system and high population densities will make a no-fly zone difficult to enforce, leading to heavy civilian casualties and, ultimately, require major troop deployments.
Despite the unity agreement, one of the Council’s spokesmen/leaders, Samir Nashar, told the Washington Times that “the majority of SNC leaders agree with international military intervention as early as possible” even though “they might not be brave enough to express it openly.” Nashar’s statements (at least those made to the Washington Times) are expressly targeted at garnering U.S. support: he told the paper that intervention would present a “historic opportunity” for the U.S. in the region, and that most Syrians would welcome a replay of NATO’s 2011 Libyan engagement. It is not clear if Nashar’s statements have been approved by the rest of the Council. The Guardian reported that as of December 31, 2011, “the membership of the group [Syrian National Council] has yet to formally adopt” the full terms of the unity agreement.
Nashar, and the Council, may be hedging their bets at this stage. Even if a Turkish or Arab League military mission (the latter would ostensibly be “permitted” by the Syrian opposition) materialized to oppose Assad, the U.S. would be involved. And unless the Syrian military decides to stand down as the Egyptian and Tunisian armed forces did last winter (thus helping force Ben Ali and Mubarak out of office), it is unlikely Assad will find himself adrift within his own inner circle. A violent end, or sufficient threat of one, would really be the only option available to the opposition to secure victory over the regime.
Nashar’s statements have also been picked up by the Israeli media. Haaretz has focused on the Council’s new Israel policy. The Guardian reports that the unity agreement between the Council and the National Coordination Body only makes vague reference to “liberating Syrian territory,” which is almost certainly a reference to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Samir Nashar is quoted as saying that while the Council’s focus would be on rebuilding Syria, “the Arab Initiative will most probably be acceptable after the regime change, and we hope it will become a reality. After Syria will get back the Golan Heights, they will accept whatever will be accepted by the Palestinian people.” Haaretz also noted Nashar’s reiteration of the Council’s promise to distance Syria from Iranian influence if Assad is removed from power. Although Nashar was reticent about the status of Hamas and recognition of Israel, he is clearly striking the right notes for liberal hawks in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
He’ll have to press harder, though. Despite Nashar’s latest comments, the U.S. and NATO have not publicly committed their forces to taking military or humanitarian action in Syria. The U.S.’s NATO ambassador said in November 2011 that “there has been no planning, no thought, and no discussion about any intervention into Syria.” The Cable reports that while conservatives and neoconservatives have been critical of Obama’s position on Syria, and of the Arab League observer mission, sources close to the administration say that the president is weighing his options for taking new steps against Assad.
Very interesting how the SNC is saying all the right things that the US wants to hear especially at the expense of destroying their own country and obliterating any military that the country has. Also the reference to relations to Iran which obviously is what the US, NATO and Israel have been demanding for years.
The problem is, although many Syrians would like to see a change, not that many are stupid enough to pay the price that Libyans paid. Although the Assad regime is in control, he realizes this control is worthless if the Syrian business elite desert him. So, sooner or later he will step down, make the transition and a new Syria will emerge. The problem with the SNC is that they know this will happen but if it happens peacefully, they will be out of it.
If the SNC get their way and the US and NATO somehow convince the Russians, Chinese and Iran to stay out of it (doubtful), then Syria will be destroyed. Israel’s “Oded Yinon’s” plan will have worked perfectly and a new Islamist country will emerge from the ashes.
Sometimes i wonder to what degree American foreign policy makers actually think beyond short term gains. With Egypt going to the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya who will likely soon go to civil war and a very extreme islamist group will emerge, putting Syria in this mix and hoping it will be pro US is a “pipe” dream , Daniel Pipes that is.
I would say its already a done deal ( “intervention” in Syria) – There is a massing of troops and equipment going on in Turkey right now. The Israeli’s are building up their northern defenses, and the Turkish foreign minister just went to Tehran – probably to tell the Iranians its over for Assad.
Its important to remember that any action taken by any state in Syria or elsewhere is a de facto US attack. The pilots might be Turks, or Saudi’s or Libyans etc. but the gear will be American..
The “syrian opposition” wants Turkey to invade – do the Turks want Aleppo?
Asad continues to have support of significant factions of the country, the alawites and shiites, Christians and some other sects. The rebel forces are made up primarily of Sunni fundamentalists backed by Salafis from Saudi Arabia. The minorities live in terror of these guys. Hard to predict how hard these minorities will fight to keep out the fundamentalists but the potential for a bloody civil war is there.
I guess since Hillary Clinton and Samantha Powers have not given their blessing to another humanitarian intervention we have not seen any of our locals calling for it yet. Let us hope sanity continues to hold.
Good points in the comments. Wesley Clark, as pointed out elsewhere on this site, said he was told a long time ago that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Libya were going to be taken over, so to speak. So it is vaguely on the table.
Part of what made attacking Libya easier was because there were many left of average people who saw that Gaddafi was a harsh dictator, didn’t consider positive parts of the regime, and just assumed that the opposition would be better. The opposition instead was very brutal and the war was very costly in lives- both civilian and on both sides. And will the opposition group now in power reallybe so enlightened? We can see in alot of Middle-eastern countries the kinds of regimes that these kinds of “regime changes” have caused, although it’s true they have not all been of one kind.
While the movements of change in Tunisia and Egypt appear positive, I dislike the massive attacks in Libya, and the cautious comments here about attacking Syria, with the concerns about Christians (10-15% of the country as I remember) and many others, are real concerns.
The Arabist article is itself sending mixed messages. The Syrian academics currently in Europe and the US that make up along with the Muslim Brotherhood the SNC has leaders Burhan Ghalyoun and Radwan Ziadeh playing good cop-bad cop in the story. The Europe-based Ghalyoun that was always against foreign military intervention in Syria is now singing a different tune saying that an intervention by Arab League forces would not be considered foreign in his book. On the other hand, the US-based Ziadeh is openly asking for American military intervention and saying that he along with members of the Muslim Brotherhood are prepared to recognize Israel and break off relations with Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran, all the tunes that the US wants to hear.
We have to keep in mind last July’s Paris meeting of Zionists to discuss the overthrow of Assad that was hosted by the Libya shit-disturber B-H Lévy. French Zionists Bernard Kouchner (that asked for military intervention in Syria), André Glucksman, Axel Poniatowski attended as well as Israelis Frédéric Encel, “who cut his teeth in the Betar youth organization of Likud” and former Knesset member and current Ehud Barak advisor, Alex Goldfarb were also included in the Jewish line-up. A notable presence at the Zionist meeting was Mulham al-Droubi, the boss of international relations of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood came out in favor of normalization with Israel without any mention to the end to the Israeli occupation and backed the monarchies of Bahrain and the rest of the Gulf Arab states especially after the United States and the European Union have made their support for the Muslim Brotherhood public. Amazingly, Burhan Ghalyoun at the time came out against the Paris Zionist meeting.