I took part last week in an illuminating conference on Syria sponsored by the new Center of Middle East Studies that is part of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. This Center has been recently established, and operates under the excellent leadership of Nader Hashemi and Danny Postel, who previously together edited the best collection of readings on the Green Revolution in Iran published under the title THE PEOPLE RELOADED.
The conference brought together a mixture of Syrian specialists, Syrian activists, and several of us with a more general concern about conflict in the region, as well as with human rights and as participants in the heated debates of recent years about the virtues and vices of ‘humanitarian intervention’, what is now being called ‘Responsibility to Protect’, or ‘R2P’, in UN circles and among liberals. I came to the gathering with a rather strong disposition to present myself as a confirmed R2P skeptic, regarding it as a cynical geopolitical euphemism for what Noam Chomsky labeled as ‘military humanism’ in the context of the controversial NATO Kosovo War of 1999. Ever since the Vietnam War, I have viewed all Western claims to use force in the post-colonial non-West with suspicion. I support presumptions in favor of non-intervention and self-determination, both fundamental norms of international law. But I left the conference dissatisfied with my position that nothing more could or should be done at the international level to help end the violence in Syria or to assist the struggle of the Syrian people. I became convinced that human solidarity with the ordeal of the Syrian people was being deeply compromised by the advocacy of passivity in the face of the criminality of the Damascus government, although what to do that is genuinely helpful remains extremely difficult to discern.
In the immediate background of the debate on Syrian policy are the bad memories of stealth diplomacy used by the United States and several European partners in March 2011 to gain UN Security Council backing for the establishment of a No Fly Zone to protect the beleaguered and endangered population of the Libyan city of Benghazi. What ensued from the outset of the UN authorized mission in Libya was a blatant disregard of the limited mandate to protect the population of a city from a threatened massacre. In its place, the NATO undertaking embarked on a concerted regime-changing NATO mission that ended with the unseemly execution of the Libyan dictator. What NATO purported to do was not only oblivious to Libya’s sovereignty, but was unmistakably a deliberate and dramatic extension of the authorized mission that understandably infuriated the autocrats in Moscow. A case could certainly have been made that in order to protect the Libyan people it was necessary to rid the country of the Qaddafi regime, but such an argument was never developed in the Security Council debate, and would never have been accepted. Against such a background, the wide gap between what was approved by the UN Security Council vote and what was done in breach of the mandate was perceived as a betrayal of trust in the setting of the Security Council, particularly by those five governments opposed to issuing a broader writ for the intervention, governments that had been deceptively induced to abstain on the ground that the UN authorization of force was limited to a single one-off protective, emergency mission.
Global diplomacy being what it is and was, there should be no surprise, and certainly no condescending self-righteous lectures delivered by Western diplomats, in reaction to the rejectionist postures adopted by Russia and China throughout the Syrian crisis. Of course, two wrongs hardly ever make a right, and do not here. NATO’s flagrant abuse of the UN mandate for Libya should certainly not be redressed at the expense of the Syrian people. In this respect, it is lamentable that those who shape policy in Moscow and Beijing are displaying indifference to the severity of massive crimes of humanity, principally perpetrated by the Assad government, as well as to the catastrophic national and regional effects of a continuing large-scale civil war in Syria. The unfolding Syrian tragedy, already resulting in more than 60,000 confirmed deaths, one million refugees, as many as 3 million internally displaced, a raging famine and daily hardships and hazards for most of the population, and widespread urban devastation, seems almost certain to continue in coming months. There exists even a distinct possibility of an intensification of violence as a deciding battle for control of Damascus gets underway in a major way. Minimally responsible behavior by every leading government at the UN would under such circumstances entail at the very least a shared and credible willingness to forego geopolitical posturing, and exert all possible pressure to bring the violence to an end.
Some suggest that an effect of this geopolitical gridlock at the UN is causing many Syrians to sacrifice their lives and put the very existence of their country in jeopardy. This kind of ‘compensation’ for NATO’s ultra virus behavior in Libya is morally unacceptable and politically imprudent. At the same time, it is hardly reasonable to assume that the UN could have ended the Syrian strife in an appropriate way if the Security Council had been able to speak with one voice. It both overestimates the capabilities of the UN and under appreciates the complexity of the Syrian struggle. Under these circumstances it is also diversionary to offload the frustrations associated with not being able to do anything effective to help the rebel forces win quickly or to impose a ceasefire and political process on the stubborn insistence by Russia and China that a solution for Syria must not be based on throwing Assad under the bus.
The Syrian conflict seems best interpreted as a matter of life or death not only for the ruling regime, but for the entire Alawite community (estimated to be 12% of the Syrian population of about 23 million), along with their support among Syria’s other large minorities (Christian 10%, Druze 3%), and a sizable chunk of the urban business world that fears more what is likely to follow Assad than Assad himself. Given these conditions, there is little reason to assume that a unified posture among the permanent members of the Security Council would at any stage in the violent months have had any realistic prospect of bringing the Syrian parties to drop their weapons and agree to risk a compromise. The origins of the crossover from militant anti-regime demonstrations to armed insurgency is most convincingly traced back to the use of live ammunition by the governing authorities and the armed forces against demonstrators in the city of Daraa from March 15, 2012 onwards, resulting in several deaths. Many in the streets of Daraa were arrested, with confirmed reports of torture and summary execution, and from this point forward there has been no credible turning away from violence by either side. Kofi Annan, who resigned as Special Envoy for the UN/Arab League in late January 2013, indicated his displeasure with both external actors, criticizing Washington for its insistence that any political transition in Syria must be preceded by the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power, a precondition that seems predicated on an insurgent victory rather than working for a negotiated solution.
Without greater diplomatic pressure from both geopolitical proxies, the war in Syria is likely to go on and on, with disastrous results. There has never been a serious willingness to solve the problems of Syria by an American-led attack in the style of Iraq 2003. For one thing, an effective intervention and occupation in a country the size of Syria, especially if both sides have significant levels of support as they continue to have, would be costly in lives and resources, uncertain in its overall effects on the internal balance of forces, and involve an international commitment that might last more than a decade. Especially in light of Western experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Washington nor Europe, has the political will to undertake such an open ended mission, especially when the perceived strategic interests are ambiguous and the political outcome is in doubt. Besides, 9/11 has receded in relevance, although still insufficiently, and the Obama foreign policy, while being far too militaristic, is much less so than during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Another approach would be to press harder for an insurgent victory by tightening sanctions on Syria or combining a weapons embargo on the regime with the supply of weapons to the opposition. This also seems difficult to pull off, and highly unlikely to bring about a positive outcome even if feasible. It is difficult to manage such an orchestration of the conflict in a manner that is effective, especially when there are strong proxy supporters on each side. Furthermore, despite much external political encouragement, especially by Turkey, the anti-Assad forces have been unable to generate any kind of leadership that is widely acknowledged either internally or externally, nor has the opposition been able to project a shared vision of a post-Assad Syria. The opposition is clearly split between secular and Islamist orientations, and this heightens the sense of not knowing what to expect what is being called ‘the day after.’ We have no reliable way of knowing whether escalating assistance to the rebels would be effective, and if so, what sort of governing process would emerge in Syria, and to what extent it would be abusive toward those who directly and indirectly sided with the government during the struggle.
Under such circumstances, seeking a ceasefire and negotiations between the parties still seems like the most sensible alternative among an array of bad options. This kind of emphasis has guided the diplomatic efforts of the UN/Arab League Special Envoys—first Kofi Annan, and now Lakhdar Brahimi—but so far producing only disillusionment. Neither side seems ready to abandon the battlefield, partly because of enmity and distrust, and partly because it still is unwilling to settle for anything less than victory. For diplomacy to have any chance of success would appear require both sides to entertain seriously the belief that a further continuation of the struggle is more threatening than ending it. Such a point has not been reached, and is not in sight.
This article is presenting views close to US policy of REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA.
Please remember that Richard folk is a MEMBER OF COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, therefore, he writes on behalf of the US interest and ‘global government”.
Don’t trust. He knows Assad has repeatedly invited the “opposition” Wahabis to come to the table to negotiate but they have been ordered by the United States and war mongers including Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice to refuse. Obama and other war criminals have called for Assad “to step down”. People of the world want him, an assassin and a baby killer to step down now. This is against all international laws where the black president have violated to achieve his policy of regime change in Syria and topple Iranian government despite the fact that 60 percent of Syrians including Christian, Sunnis, Allowites and KURDS repeatedly said we support BASHAR AL ASSAD.
Shame on people who present lies to mislead people.
Richard Falk not only writes to protect the interest of the US, his writings also creates confusion and division among the phony “progressives” and pseudo “left” like himself to give a helping hand to Obama’s criminal regime change policy.
Richard folk is supporting “global government’ meaning “empire”, and has written about it many times. He also supports Turkey, Trojan horse, and a war criminal Erdugan, to implement US policy in the Middle East and Africa. He like the war criminals, Hillary Clinton and Obama advocate Turkey as a “model” for Muslims, meaning in the service of the imperialism and zionism. He also advocates Turkey as the ‘capital’ of the empire in the region. He calls it “global capital” which is laughable.
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/further-reflections-on-istanbul-as-global-capital/
He advocates Erdugan’s, a war criminal, vision in Syria, No Fly Zon, which is against the international law. In fact he like Erdugan and the ‘oppositon’ groups advocates NO FLY ZONE. he writes:
{There are sensible suggestions for establishing local ceasefires in the considerable areas in the countryside under the control of rebel forces, for supplying food and medical supplies to the population by means of protected ‘humanitarian corridors,’ and for taking steps to improve the woeful lot of Syrian refugees currently facing inadequate accommodations and unacceptable hardships in Lebanon and Jordan.}
If the Unites States is interested in the welfare of the Syrian people, then Obama must STOP supporting the terrorists. The US is doing the same in Iran. Obama is killing Iranians through Savage and illegal Sanctions, assassinations, economic sabotage, terrorist attack, drone attack, cyber attack. Richard Falk is trying to justify Obama’s policy in Syria, Iran and the region by presenting bias and misleading articles.
Mr. Falk like other US officials holds Assad responsible for the massacre in Syria although many times have been proven that the “Syrian Free Army” is responsible.
For example, Richard Falk quickly accused Assad for Al Haula massacre without prove. What would have US gov done if Wahabi terrorists funded by Saudis and butcher of Qatar, and armed by the United States attack Israel?
We know what Obama said when Israel was killing babies in Palestine. He said: “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Israel is an occupying force supported by the United States and Obama, where Richard Folk asked people to vote for him AGAIN. Assad is fighting against the FOREIGN TERRORISTS, who are armed by US and Arab States.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s speech early this month has crushed US-Turkey-NATO hopes for capitulation.
This article is bias and does not deserve to be posted at this site. It should be presented in journals close to US government policy like Richard Falk’s views. This kind of article brings more division rather unity among ‘progressives’ and anti war groups.
Finally, Nader Hashemi, who was mentioned in the beginning of this article, is supporter of NED(CIA) constructed “green wave” like Richard Falk; signed a petition calling on Obama to establish “NO FLY ZONE” in Libya with disastrous outcome where 50000 people were massacred.
Mr. Falk does not mention the United States when he writes about attack on Libya. Mr. Falk at least be honest with yourself and accept that Libya was not attacked only by NATO, in fact, the attack let by Obama and the United States. Nader Hashemi is a war criminal.
Legal! Vamos fazer camisetas assim.
http://www.atuall.com
{Furthermore, despite much external political encouragement, especially by Turkey, the anti-Assad forces have been unable to generate any kind of leadership…, nor has the opposition been able to project a shared vision of a post-Assad Syria.}
Despite Richard Falk’s love relation with Erdugan, a war criminal, people of Turkey DO NOT WANT their country to wage war to topple Assad on behalf of Washington, NATO, Israel and reactionary Arabs. People of Turkey are demonstrating in the street daily against US, NATO and reactionary Arab head of states while Americans remain silent or actively supporting the war mongers due to strong propaganda war waged by US officials and the phony “progressives” and pseudo ‘left’ who voted for Obama, at different sites.
The US fascist state and NATO under pretext of Turkey’s ‘defense’ want to deploy Patriot missiles on its border with Syria which is an ACT OF WAR AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAN despite strong opposition from Iran, Syria, China and Russia. General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a US servant said the alliance would consider the Turkish ‘request without delay’.
Despite strong opposition from Russia, Syria, China and Iran, the NATO military alliance on December 4 approved Turkey’s request for the deployment of Patriot surface-to-air missiles along its border with Syria.
NATO soldiers scheduled to arrive here this week to shield the region against potential Syrian missile attacks are not welcome protectors but unwanted foreign occupiers.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/22/284996/protest-held-in-ankara-over-nato-missiles/
Turkish protesters have rallied in the capital, Ankara, to protest against the deployment of NATO Patriot missiles along their country’s border with Syria. The prot urged the parliament on Tuesday to take action and cancel the deployment of NATO missiles and troops in Turkey.
Mr. Falk: people of the region are fed up with US wars and illegal sanctions against Muslims where have killed millions of people so far. 9/11 was an inside job for ‘global’ hegemony.
The people in Turkey do not want your troops there. They consider Erdugan a war criminal, but you have been praising Erdugan since his rise to power, like US policy makers, because Turkey is US Trojan horse, in the region.
Richard Falk does an excellent job of describing the dilemma that faces policy makers on Syria. There are no good choices today, given that the West is unwilling to spend real money on Syria.
Turkey and the GCC nations can doing some spending.
The reactionary Saudi Prince calls for Syria militants to be given sophisticated weapons like CIA consultant Joshua Landis:
Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former intelligence chief and brother of the Saudi foreign minister, made the remarks on Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“What is needed are sophisticated, high-level weapons that can bring down planes, can take out tanks at a distance. This is not getting through,” Reuters quoted the Saudi prince as saying.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/25/285531/saudi-prince-calls-for-arming-militants/
If Joshua Landis does not support Richard Falk’s call on Assad “ to step down”, then WHO DOES? Both support Obama’s policy in Libya, Iran and Syria but both think Obama must do more saying:
“the West is unwilling to spend real money on Syria.”
What does he mean by “real money”? Landis means supply of ANTI-AIRCARAFT MISSILES to terrorists who are funded by the reactionary Arab head of States, the butcher of Qatar and Saudi Arabia providing wahabis and salafites terrorists as “opposition” supported by a “socialist” president, Hollande, who has just invaded another African country, Mali, on spurious charges led by THE UNITED STATES and OBAMA. All these wars waged on false flag are against international laws. Assad is supported by 60 percent of Syrian people, but Obama was selected on 51 percent, mainly and billions of dollars from the corrupt Wall Street.
From every angle you look, Assad is MORE legitimate than Obama who is asking Assad to step down, so he can brings US terrorist pawns to power to facilitate his main policy, regime change in Iran to benefit Israel and US .
Angry Arab exposed reactionary position of Joshua Landis on October 23, 2012:
{Joshua Landis wants missiles
So Joshua Landis, using his long-standing military expertise obtained in graduate studies of the Middle East, calls on the US government to supply the Free Syrian Army gangs and Al-Qa`idah affiliates with anti-aircraft missiles. I read this and thought: have you noticed this rule about the Syrian conflict? The most vocal advocates of the armed Syrian opposition gangs in the West (aside from Zionists) are those writers and academics who were for years apologists for the Syrian regime?}
Angry Arab referes to the following post written by Landis:
{The US Must Supply anti-Aircraft Missiles to the Syrian Opposition
by Joshua Landis
October 22, 2012
The US government should tell Assad that he must launch serious negotiations for a transition government. If he does not, Western governments should supply opposition militias with ground to air missiles in sufficient numbers to bring down the Syrian air-force. Circumstantial evidence suggests that US officials in Libya may already have been working to facilitate the transfer of portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—from Libya to Syria. As soon as the elections are over in the US, Washington should redouble its efforts at changing the balance of power in Syria, if Assad does not begin to form a transitional government in earnest. He must come to terms with the most powerful rebel leaders or see his air force neutralized.}
It is shameful to see arrogant and war criminals reserve the right to topple sovereign government who are obstacle to their colonization plan.
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=15984
Don’t forget that, Richard Falk is a MEMBER OF the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS and Landis is part of the US government propaganda machine to form public opinion among phony “progressives” to support Obama’s vicious policy in Syria and Iran where he regularly goes on the air at NPR to spread US propaganda.
People of the Middle East are fed up with war criminal activities of the United States and its reactionary allies including TURKEY. People of Turkey are demonstrating daily against US, NATO and Arab reactionary head of states that are supported by Obama, the first black president.
Phony liberals and “progressives” cannot fool people. American people slowly but surely are waking up and YOU are the first TO GO.
EVERYONE supports the end of the Assad dictatorship and police state, arrowheaded one, outside of a small circle of slime.
Obama cannot get rid off the fly on his forhead, then how can he remove Assad who has than 60 percent popularity among Syrians?
Obama with billions of dollars from the wall street and propaganda machine from phony “progressives” could secure only 51% of the votes. He is ONE percent president asking Assad with 60 percent popularity ‘to step down’. It is laughable. I
http://www.ibtimes.com/photo-obama-fly-his-forehead-goes-viral-video-1038398