During his visit to Moscow on Tuesday 7th May 2013 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry made a joint announcement, stressing their agreement in principle to resolve the current crisis in Syria.
It was agreed by both parties that they would jointly organise an international conference, on ending the conflict in Syria if possible before the end of May. The basis and starting point of this conference will be core elements of the final communiqué issued on 30 June 2012. Secretary of State John Kerry states “We believe that the Geneva communiqué is the important track to end the bloodshed in Syria.”
Furthermore he stated in the meeting that : “The United States believes that we share some very significant common interests with respect to Syria – stability in the region, not having extremists creating problems throughout the region and elsewhere.”
In response Putin said his government has agreed, “to cooperate in maintaining the stability in Syria and make sure the country does not descend into further violence.”
From the statements of both the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry, it is clear that both the US and Russian have agreed to resolve the issue of Syria by the forceful implementation of the Geneva communiqué. Against the wishes of the Syrian people, who would like to see the perpetrators of massacres and held accountable for their crimes.
In its haste to find an acceptable solution to the crisis in Syria, the US has backed down on previously sacrosanct positions namely the departure of al-Assad. Secretary of State John Kerry stated “personally I couldn’t see how a leader responsible for such widespread abuses could remain in power as part of a peace deal. But I’m not going to make that judgment,” he said. Saying, “It was up to the Syrian people”.
This development is another strategy in a long line of strategies by the US to influence the outcome in Syria. The US has been working to preserve its influence and prevent the establishment of a state based upon the tenets of the Shari’ah. The influence and hegemony of the US in Syria relies heavily upon the security services which includes the army and intelligence services. To this affect the Geneva communiqué states; “Continuity of governmental institutions and also qualified staff. The public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However, all governmental institutions, including the intelligence services, have to perform according to human rights and professional standards and operate under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body.” Hence an integral part of the American policy and thus the Geneva communiqué is the preservation of Alawi dominated security services.
There are a number of factors that have led to the current caused for the shift in US policy on Syria, some of which are:
• The failure of the National Defence Force (NDF) to form a reliable and cohesive military force has weakened the US position. The procrastination of the US at the beginning of the revolution was designed to give al-Assad enough time to crush the revolt. Central to this plan was the creation of an alternative Alawi army which would replace the largely Sunni and unreliable conscript army. To achieve this, Alawi men were recruited in to irregular battalions known as the National Defence Force. These battalions have failed to replace the army in most front line positions, they have remained largely localised gangs of thugs, more interested in looting houses than fighting in far districts for al-Assad’s cause. Hence the central cause of al-Assad’s weakness has not been resolved, namely the shortage of reliable soldiers to spearhead the retaking of territory from the opposition.
This fact is amply shown in the many field offensives that have been undertaken by the Syrian army. Although it is relatively easy for al-Assad’s army to make armoured thrusts into rebel held territory, but without the infantry support the tanks al-Assad’s army are subsequently massacred by lightly armed but highly mobile rebels. Hence offensives in the village of Aziziya , Khirbat al ghazal, Jobar,Hama, Homs, Idlib, Aleppo and even Darya which is on the door step of the 4th armoured brigade have failed to dislodge the rebels. The main factor for this failure being the unwillingness of infantry to advance with tanks into rebel held territory and suffer the extremely high casualty rate required to protect vulnerable armour in urban spaces.
Hence al-Assad has been unable to fully open supply routes to Aleppo international airport, Dara, Raqqa, Dier Zhur, Idlib, or any major area of confrontation.
• The lack of secular fighters has become abundantly clear to the US. The New York Times admitted in an article titled “Islamist rebels create dilemma on Syrian policy” “Nowhere in rebel is controlled Syria there a secular fighting force to speak off.” The only alternative for US is the continuation of the current regime in some one form or another.
• Imminent rebel victories in Minigh airport, Central prison and Al kindi hospital threaten to change the military situation in the north. The main supply route to al-Assad’s army in Allepo is through the bases at Al kindi hospital and the Central prison both of which are imminently falling into rebel hands. This gives the rebels an uncontested control of northern Syria. Capture of Minigh airport will give the rebels an independent airport less than 6 km from the Turkish border which may even allow direct deliveries of weapons by passing the US strangle hold on supplies. This will significantly change the realities on the ground and weakens the US position vis-à-vis pressuring the opposition to accept the Geneva communiqué.
• Hezbollah reluctance to back al-Assad’s regime whole heartedly. Although Hezbollah has committed a number of its troops to the fight in Syria. It has not sent significant enough troops to affect the balance of power. Its hundreds not thousands of its members are deployed on parts of the border with Lebanon, parts of Homs and at the Seyedna Zainab shrine only. This reluctance stems from their understanding that greater involvement in Syria with its inevitable losses will leads to its collapse in Lebanon. Hence Nasrallah’s bellicose rhetoric has not been backed by significant deployment of resources into Syria. Rather it has worked to secure its position in Lebanon by conserving its resources, it was hoped by the US that a significant deployment of Hezbollah fighters would persuade the rebels to come to the negotiating table, but this has not occurred.
• The US gave the green light to its agents Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE to provide small quantities of Croatian weapons to the rebels in Syria. The types of weapons supplied had very specific ammunition hence the use of these weapons could be tightly controlled by the US. The quantities provided were not significant enough to tip the military balance in favour of the rebels, but helped the rebels secure the border of Syria with Jordan. These shipments under US pressure have been stopped since march, but this has had little effect on the progress of the rebels, rather they have been able to seize significant amounts of weapons from regime stock piles most significantly in Khan Tauman where an extremely large quantity of grad missiles was seized, having independence in weapons for the rebels is not a situation that pleases the US as it further erodes the influence that the US can have on the ground in Syria
• A series of very gruesome massacres and accusations of the use of chemical weapons has increased the pressure both domestic and internationally on the US, to arm or at least let others arm so called moderate elements of the Syrian resistance. Without a resolution the worsening humanitarian situation in Syria will inevitably lead to the arms embargo on the rebels to be lifted greatly reducing US influence. The announcement of imminent talks has forestalled any talk on arming rebels.
• The worst case scenario from an US perspective is the formation of an Islamic state in Syria. The continued presence of an Alawi state on the western coast of Syria will effectively seal this state off from the outside world, a land locked state is at the mercy of its neighbours and remains weak until it gains access to the sea. Hence a as a contingency it is vital for American interests that a strong Alawi army survives this war. At the current rate of attrition it is unlikely that an Alawi army of any capability will survive to retreat into the Alawi mountains.
In conclusion it is clear to the US that the likely scenarios in Syria will almost certainly lead to a Syrian state which is both politically and military independent from it. Syria is strategically located at the heart of the Arab world. Hence the adoption of Islam as a political system in any form in Syria is not an outcome that the US is willing to see. Hence the US continues to work for the survival of this barbaric regime in order to safe guard its interests in Syria.
Mozimmal Hussain
Aliyah rafeeq