By Firas AL-SHOUFI

It has been ten long years since the US and its regional allies launched their proxy war on Syria, a war that caused immeasurable human tragedy and, with Syria’s diminished political role, a dangerous regional imbalance. And yet, the Gulf States and Jordan are only just waking up to the perils of leaving Syria out in the cold.

Historically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Damascus has maintained a high level of diplomatic proficiency and influence, even compelling the US to communicate through Damascus as a means of contact between regional powers.

Modern Syria has effectively been a bridge between the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Tehran, a bulwark against Turkish expansionist efforts in the Arab world, and a key political factor in securing a minimum level of stability in the region.

But in 2003, the Gulf States threw their collective weight behind the US in its war on Iraq, and then since 2005, its machinations against Syria. In 2011, trembling in the wake of Arab uprisings, key Gulf States fully supported the international and terrorist proxy war on Syria, without understanding the repercussion of Damascus’ regional decline on their own fates.

Of the US’ staunchest Arab allies, only Egypt, with its deep political heritage, maintained a minimum of political-security relations with Syria, even during the days of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi.

Today, the Gulf States and Jordan are stuck hard between their own geopolitical and economic interests and the aggressive US decision to subjugate Syria at any cost. Their gamble on Syria’s collapse through either war or economic blockade has failed, and attempts to alter Damascus’ position on Israel, Palestine and the Resistance Axis have been counterproductive. If anything, the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah relationship has solidified and been empowered through years of fighting from the same command center.

The bloody war waged by Saudi Arabia and its allies on Yemen soon morphed into a strategic threat to the security of Saudi Arabia and to the commercial sea routes of the Gulf States. Saudi influence in Lebanon receded from its usual playground of political-economic affairs, and left Riyadh with only minor tools to sabotage and shake stability. More importantly, Syria has now become an advanced base for Russian forces, giving Moscow a strategic view of the Mediterranean and a corridor in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

When Syrian forces liberated Deir Ezzor from its mercenary ISIS armies; when conflict hotspots resolved in favor of the Syrian state; when the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence crossed deep into Riyadh’s comfort zones; when Turkish pressures amassed; and when the military resistance by Yemen proved far too mighty to break; only then did the Saudis slowly start to back off.

Meanwhile, countries such as Oman, Algeria, Tunisia and Iraq, who had maintained diplomatic relations with Damascus throughout the mayhem, started demanding Syria’s return to the Arab League.

The first step in Riyadh’s ‘change of heart’ was an undeclared security–political openness to Damascus. The Saudis have slowly initiated secret lines of communications, the most prominent of which are alleged meetings between the head of the Syrian National Security Office, Major General Ali Mamlouk, and Prince Muhammad Bin Salman, and the visit of the Director of Saudi Intelligence Khaled Humaidan to Damascus in May this year.

On the agenda of the Saudi-Syrian contacts are two main items: reining in Turkey and easing tension with Tehran. An Arab diplomatic source confirms that “the Saudis would have almost opened their embassy in Damascus, had it not been for the American pressure that put brakes on the Saudi initiatives.”

The UAE, which maintained back lines of communication with Syria during the 10-year war, is today at the forefront of efforts pushing Arab states toward normalizing relations with Damascus. This Emirati role, as described by more than one observer, is driven by Abu Dhabi’s desire to curb Turkey’s regional ambitions and by a need to balance out its excessive coziness with the Israeli enemy. Sources also confirm that the UAE would have taken more impulsive steps toward Damascus, had it not been for American pressures.

As for Qatar, which still maintains hostility toward Damascus stemming from its strong Muslim Brotherhood affiliation and its functional relationship as a Turkish claw in the Persian Gulf, Doha has rolled back the inflammatory, often sectarian, language it used during the war on Syria. As reflected in Al-Jazeera’s more recent coverage, Qatar has considerably changed its tone, now utilizing the official terminology of the Syrian Arab Army SAA) and President Bashar al-Assad in its reporting. Despite this, a Syrian source say that it is “Damascus [which] has reservations about the return of relations with Doha, and not the other way around.”

In Jordan, King Abdallah’s throne is increasingly vulnerable, not to his enemies, but to his allies in the Gulf and Israel, and he has moved to strengthen his ties with Egypt and Iraq and to reestablish a relationship with Syria. Sources say Abdallah discussed normalization during his last visit to Washington, where he attempted to soften Washington’s position on Damascus. Jordan re-opened the Naseeb-Jaber border crossing to Syria in April – a vital lifeline to Jordan’s pandemic-hit and flailing economy – only to shutter it again in July when violent clashes broke out between Daraa militants and the SAA. A ministerial meeting in Amman, due to be held on 8 September between the energy ministers of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, looks to be yet another step toward breaking the diplomatic and political siege on Syria.

In August, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi expressed enthusiasm about inviting President Assad to participate in his heavily-publicized Baghdad Summit. It wasn’t to be. Iraqi sources told The Cradle “The French and the Turks obstructed Syria’s participation in the Baghdad summit.” French President Emmanuel Macron, appears hellbent on establishing some international credit – and the desirable optics – for France’s presidential elections in seven months. The French hadn’t spent years working to unseat Assad, only to have him show up in Baghdad standing next to their president in photo ops. Macron’s obstruction is not limited to Iraq, however, but extends to Lebanon, where the French are engaged in some serious arm-twisting to prevent an official Lebanese rush toward Damascus. As mentioned, Turkey also weighed in to nix Assad’s Baghdad visit in accordance with Erdogan’s continued hostility towards Syria, and perhaps also to outmaneuver his Emirati foes.

Of all places, the American veto on Arab normalization with Syria may ultimately meet its demise in Lebanon. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s announcement that he will import Iranian fuel for the besieged Levantine state takes an axe to the meticulously-constructed US bans on Arab trade with and through Syria. Nasrallah’s decision embarrassed Washington and its clueless ambassador to Beirut, who immediately rushed to unilaterally lift the ban on fuel imports via Syria – as long as they travelled through Jordan from Egypt. The Lebanese, ultimately, won’t care where their much-needed energy supplies comes from, but this American move showed them who is actually responsible for their shortages.

General Security chief, Major-General Abbas Ibrahim, has tried several times to open up these transport channels, but failed because of Lebanese fears of American sanctions. Likewise, Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun, whose every effort and intention was foiled by a US veto. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations to import gas and electricity from Egypt and Jordan to Lebanon via Syria, the biggest beneficiary of this American opening is Damascus, which knows how to take advantage of opportunities when they fall in its lap. Syria will undoubtedly use this crack in the door to re-engage participants on various vital issues:  demarcating maritime borders with Beirut to extract oil from The Syrian-Lebanese coast, and arranging transit affairs from the Syrian Sea to the Persian Gulf through Jordan – effectively breaking the US-imposed ‘Caesar Act’ that prohibited regional financial, economic and political dealings with Damascus.

The biggest loser in all matters – from its thoroughly incompetent Afghanistan withdrawal to the collapse of its Syrian siege – is the United States of America, which will seek, in parallel with continuing – but now in the open – pressure on Lebanon, to try to reengage with Syria. US relations with Syria will never be in earnest, always with malicious intent to serve its own geopolitical ambitions at the expense of Damascus’ allies and the Palestinian issue, and so will amount to nothing other than providing further legitimacy for the Syrian state.

With Syria’s military and political stabilization now a near certainty, most Arab countries that had severed relations with Damascus have, to varying degrees, reinstated their diplomatic representatives in Syria, either by sending an ambassador or a chargé d’affaires back to the Syrian capital.

Many European countries, among them the Czech Republic, Austria, Greece, Italy, Spain and Romania, have either started or have expressed a plan to re-open their embassies in Damascus.

Syria’s return to the Arab League remains the last hurdle in the full spectrum of eventual Arab rapprochement, something that all Arab nations – and not just Syria – urgently need. The US, however, is still trying to hold the reins of that horse tightly, refusing to allow Saudi Arabia to make its decision independently. But for the rest of the Arab world and beyond, a break from that suffocating noose could well be on the horizon.

thecradle.co

Therefore, one had to assume the urgent Arab emergency summit meeting in Mecca on May 30, 2019, would have to do, though belatedly, with the ramifications of Arab states destroying Arab states, Muslims killing Muslims, Arabs killing Arabs. Or perhaps more specific urgent Arab matters such as the American recognition of a united Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel, the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the declaration by Netanyahu of his intention to annex the major Israeli settlements with American acquiescence or with the American recognition of the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan, or the “Deal of the Century”. Surprisingly and unfortunately the summit dealt with none of the above.

On the face of it, the summit was an official Arab emergency summit, but in reality, it was a Saudi Arabian summit and the agenda was a Saudi Arabian agenda: Iran, which was practically the exclusive item on the agenda and in the final communique. No perceptive Arab affairs genius would have thought of an urgent need for an emergency Arab summit to deal with a presumed ‘Iranian threat’ to the Arabs. There is mutual animosity and perception of security threats between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and a very few Arab states, mostly in the Gulf region, on the other hand. However, there are no similar feelings between the majority of other Arab states and Iran.

The final communique was delivered by the Secretary General of the Arab League, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, at the conclusion of the summit. It starts with a preamble and ten operative paragraphs. Iran is mentioned in the preamble and the operative paragraphs no less than fifteen times. The onslaught on Iran full of provocations and invectives started with the preamble and moved on with gusto in the operative paragraphs.

The impetus for convening the emergency summit, as noted by Mr. Aboul Gheit, was “the serious repercussions of the attack by the Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist militias on two oil pumping stations in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the attack on commercial vessels in the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates.”

In view of the killing and wounding of millions of Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs, the immigration and displacement of more millions, the chaos and destruction and the rendering of several Arab states as failed states, it is amazing that attacks on two oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia, and on four commercial vessels in the territorial waters of the UAE, in which the culprit is uncertain, warranted the convening of an emergency Arab League summit to target and condemn Iran. It is made clear in the preamble, and the ten substantive paragraphs, of the communique that the culprit is Iran. But why the certainty that Iran is the culprit? Because John Bolton, American National Security Adviser, who is not known for his honesty and truthfulness, said so! Mr. Bolton said he will provide the evidence later; thus, a new legal norm: Convict then provide the evidence.

Not only the reason for convening of the emergency summit is amazing, but the content of the ten-paragraph communique is shocking.

1. Historically and traditionally, Israel and Zionism are standard features in Arab League summit communiques. Thus, the present summit communique is a first for not including the terms Israel nor Zionism once.

2. Similarly, Palestinians are a standard feature in Arab League summit communiques. Thus, the present communique is also a first for not mentioning the Palestinians once. Although, as an afterthought, the last sentence of the last paragraph ten states that the issue of Palestine is “the main Arab issue”, but it did not merit a single operative paragraph.

3. While the communique does not include the aforementioned names, it has certainly gone overboard in provocatively and invectively mentioning Iran/Iranians and often preceded by ‘condemning’ and ‘denouncing’, no less than fifteen times.

4. Syria is mentioned once in paragraph ten for the purpose of condemning Iran. It is ironic that the Arab states, who expelled Syria from the League, the majority of which were not independent states when Syria and five Arab states established the League in 1945, met in a presumed Arab League summit and have suddenly become concerned about Syria. They denounced “the Iranian interference in the Syrian crisis and its implications for Syria’s future.”

The irony is that the ‘Iranian interference’ is legitimate, because it came at the request of the legitimate Syrian government and “supported Damascus’s efforts in fighting terrorism which was supported by some of those meeting in this summit”, as noted by the Syrian Foreign Ministry.

The Arab summit in Mecca was a Saudi Arabian conference attended by Arab states to discuss Saudi Arabia’s perceived and contrived Iranian threats. Threats which are, largely, not shared by most of the Arab states, not even shared by some of the Arab Gulf states. The contention that Iran constitutes a threat to the Arab states is contentious, and irrespective of what Netanyahu, Bolton and Pompeo claim, it is Iran which is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Finally, why manufacture a new crisis, and a potential war in the Muslim Arab region which is already ravaged by a multitude of crises, conflicts and wars?

There has been much discussion surrounding the travel of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri to Saudi Arabia on November 4^th. Al-Hariri, who is a Saudi-Lebanese dual national with considerable business and other personal interests in Saudi Arabia apparently complied with a summons to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has been shaking up his government as part of what appears to be an attempt to concentrate more power in his own hands being marketed as a campaign against corruption. Al-Hariri was by some accounts met at the Riyadh airport unceremoniously and placed under something like house arrest. He shortly thereafter read a statement – or was it a script? – claiming that he had fled Lebanon in fear that he might be assassinated. He resigned his office and proceeded to denounce Iranian influence over his country, saying that Tehran was seeking to gain control through its dominance of Hezbollah and the acquiescence of the president, a Maronite Christian, Michel Aoun.

Al-Hariri was allowed to leave Saudi Arabia on Saturday, flying to Paris to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron, but his children and business interests are still in Saudi Arabia, suggesting that his actions will be dictated by Riyadh. Al-Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, was in Beirut on Wednesday for Lebanon’s Independence Day, where he was convinced to hold off on formally submitting his resignation to the government so more discussions could take place. This temporarily avoids a government crisis for the country, where a coalition carefully designed to balance the country’s three major religious constituencies only came together last year.

Al-Hariri’s fall from grace came about because the Saudis were unhappy regarding his reluctance to directly confront Iranian influence, best demonstrated by Hezbollah’s unilateral participation in the civil war in neighboring Syria. The Saudis, who forced through a resolution at the Arab League last weekend declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization, would like to have its political wing out of the government completely, an impossibility given its military and political power. Riyadh is also believed to be working with the Israelis to increase pressure and create a casus belli over Lebanon to justify direct action to isolate Hezbollah. And the ultimate target is Iran with the two countries working together to roll up Iranian influence in the region starting with Lebanon, which will see increasing political and economic pressure from Riyadh while the Israelis will be standing by to intervene militarily, if necessary. 

There are credible reports that Israel and Saudi Arabia, though not bound by any formal agreement, have come to an understanding over how to proceed which will include the abandonment of a number of long established policies. The Palestinians will, in particular, be thrown under the bus yet again and have been warned by Riyadh to cut all ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia will apparently no longer push the Israelis to accommodate Palestinian aspirations for full statehood, which will mean that refugees will have no right to return under any formula for a settlement and Jerusalem will remain wholly in Israeli hands.

It is a major risk for the al-Saud Royal House to appear to be abandoning the highly popular Palestinian cause, so what’s in it for Saudi Arabia? Israeli and U.S. support for the idea that Iran is enemy number one and must be dealt with using the military option trumps anything going on in Ramallah. Leaked Israeli and Saudi diplomatic cables have made clear that Tel Aviv will endorse Riyadh’s genocidal assault and blockade on Yemen and any other comparable actions while the Saudis will in return regard the Palestinian issue as a distraction. They will use their economic leverage to compel the Palestinians to agree to an admittedly unacceptable peace plan brokered by the U.S. and approved of by Israel. The U.S. is reportedly fully on board at this point and it is believed that son-in-law Jared Kushner has been the chief negotiator for the White House.

So what could go wrong? Probably everything as most of the current initiatives being discussed are unattainable. Israel has overwhelming air and sea superiority in the region but it does not have the boots on the ground to control the land it flies over. Nor do the Saudis and Riyadh’s vision of some kind of broad Sunni front taking shape against Iran and the Shi’as is almost certainly little more than wishful thinking. Hezbollah has been preparing for war and it has considerable experience in fighting the Israelis, having driven them out of Lebanon in 2000. It has thousands of missiles of variable quality concealed in bomb-proofed sites and there are reports that there are plans to unleash them in enormous waves if Israel were to strike. Israeli interceptor defenses are formidable, including Iron Dome, but they would be unable to cope with the volume and the devastation could be enormous on both sides.

And there is no sign that the Lebanese, who have placed their army on standby, are eager to avoid a war by cutting a preemptive deal with the Saudis that would involve Israel, so the idea of starting a hot conflict that could somehow be managed which would destroy Hezbollah will likely prove to be a bridge too far for Riyadh and Tel Aviv. And then there are the Palestinians, who just might not be willing, or able, to play ball no matter how much Saudi money is being offered.

All of which could easily leave the United States out on a limb. If it climbs into bed with the Israelis and Saudis and commits to take down Iran it will wind up having to do the hard fighting in a war that could be unwinnable in any conventional sense. Russia will almost certainly be watching closely but will wisely stay out of any conflict as long as its own interests in Syria and Iran are not threatened. If “regime change” in Lebanon to weaken Iran plays out badly, which it will, it means that all parties involved will suffer from another decade of instability in the Middle East.

As delegates gathered in Egypt’s resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh for the Arab League last weekend, nearly half of its member states were at the same time openly engaged in an aerial blitz on one of the League’s weakest countries – Yemen. 

Far from issuing any misgiving, or appeal for restraint, the League fully endorsed the onslaught on Yemen and even went on to call for a new «unified military force» to repeat the action in other countries where a «security risk» is deemed. This is a cart blanche for further foreign military interventions bypassing the United Nations Security Council. In other words, it is open season for lawless aggression.

With a population of only 24 million and half of them living in poverty, Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the Arab region. It is also one of the founding members of the Arab League, which was formed in 1945 at the end of the Second World War. 

Since last week, scores of Yemeni civilians, including children, have been killed in a massive bombing campaign led by Saudi Arabia and co-ordinated by the United States. The bombing coalition of 10 countries include Egypt, North Sudan, Morocco and the Persian Gulf Arab states of Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain. More than 200 fighter jets from those countries have been reported carrying out air strikes on the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, as well as on the southern port city of Aden and surrounding countryside.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries claim that the Houthi-led uprising in Yemen is being orchestrated by Iran. But the claims are far from substantiated and most likely trumped-up for self-serving reasons of providing justification for what is otherwise simply criminal aggression toward Yemen. The Washington Post reported: «The Saudis and their allies think [sic] that the Shiite rebels are backed by Iran and that Tehran is trying to exert control over a country [regime] that has been an an ally of Riyadh and Washington.» The latter factual detail about the erstwhile Yemeni regime being an ally of Riyadh and Washington is the real key to the latest Saudi-led offensive, not the speculative hearsay about Iran.

So, Yemen is being bombed and civilians are being massacred merely because the Saudis and their allies «think» that Iran is somehow involved. No proof, no legal case, just bombs away. 

The Houthis are a Shia sect and reportedly maintain friendly political, diplomatic relations with Shia Iran. But both parties categorically deny any military involvement. Rather, the Houthis, also known as Ansarullah, appear to be the vanguard of popular rebellion against the ousted Yemeni regime that was long-supported by Saudi Arabia and the US. Last week, the deposed president Abdel Rabbo Mansour Hadi fled the country to take refuge in Saudi Arabia. Even if Iran was supporting the Houthis that still does not legitimise an all-out bombing of Yemen led by a consortium of Arab monarchies armed and guided by the US. 

In Sanaa over the past week family homes, shops and offices have been demolished during hundreds of sorties by warplanes as the Saudi-led coalition pounded the city on nightly raids. Yemen’s international airport was so badly hit it is no longer functioning, thus cutting off the country. A naval blockade by Saudi, Egyptian and US warships has also severed Yemen’s access to the Red Sea to its west. While in on the southern coast, in Aden, bodies of civilians were reportedly strewn on streets as hospitals filled up with the wounded, and as US warships patrolled the Gulf of Aden.

Against this background of slaughter, the Arab League endorsed the Saudi-led military attacks. Saudi King Salman told the summit that the bombing campaign would continue until Houthi rebels are defeated. Meaning there is no end in sight to the onslaught. Indeed, it is now anticipated that the extensive aerial bombardment and naval siege is paving the way for a massive ground invasion of 150,000 Saudi troops that were mobilised last week along the northern Yemeni border. 

Attending the Arab League convocation, and royally received, was the discredited president of Yemen, Mansour Hadi. He called on the Saudi military coalition to not relent in its strikes against his own country until the Houthi «Iranian stooges» are crushed. The irony is that Mansour Hadi is widely excoriated within Yemen, and not just by the Houthis, as a stooge of Saudi Arabia and Washington. His steadfast refusal to deliver on popular demands for a democratic transition in Yemen over the past three years led to the Houthis seizing the capital and government institutions at the end of 2014.

The latest Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen, overseen by Washington, has been condemned by Iran, Russia and China. 

But the United Nations has shown lamentable passivity in the face of this foreign aggression on Yemen. Speaking at the Arab League summit, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon failed to make any condemnation of the aerial bombardment of that country. 

«It is my fervent hope that at this Arab League summit leaders will lay down clear guidelines to peacefully resolve the crisis in Yemen,» said Ban Ki-Moon with a complacency bordering on cynicism. He urged Arab members to engage in peace talks supposedly brokered by his special envoy, Jamal Benomar. This was said while Saudi Arabia and others were openly vowing to continue their blitzkrieg.

The naked aggression on Yemen, with the complicity of the US and European capitals, is perhaps the nadir for the Arab League and the United Nations. The descent of these organisations into disgraceful irrelevance has been decades in the making. The despicable transformation into tools of aggression is now clear in the eyes of the world. 

The UN and the Arab League have remained silent while the US and its allies launched war after war on countries over the past two decades, most notably on Iraq during the 1990s and 2000s, which resulted in over one million dead, mainly civilians. Worse, the UN and the Arab League stand accused of complicity by giving Washington a de facto green light – and on some occasions logistical support – to wage its wars across the Middle East.

In 2011, the Arab League expelled Libya and Syria, even though these countries were being subjected to US-NATO aggression, along with the collusion of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was murdered by NATO-assisted and Gulf-financed extremists in 2011, denounced the Arab League before his death as «finished». 

Syria, as with Yemen, was one of the founding members of the Arab League, yet the government of President Bashar al Assad remains to this day suspended from the 22-member organisation. The Syrian government’s seat has been given over to the Western-backed Syrian National Council which is comprised of non-entity exiles who have no popular mandate within Syria.

The League is thus nothing more than a self-serving talking shop dominated by Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf Arab kingdoms. As client regimes of Washington, that in turn makes the League a tool of the US to give a thin cover for its imperial predations in the Middle East and North Africa.

Ironically, one of the founding principles of the Arab League is to protect the «sovereignty and independence» of its members. 

Ominously, the lawlessness and outright aggression that has gripped international affairs – with the latest manifestation in the collective bombing of Yemen – is reminiscent of the 1930s.

That perilous period saw a series of international aggressions carried out by fascist powers with impunity. The League of Nations – a forerunner of the United Nations – facilitated these aggressions through its shameful silence and connivance. When Japan annexed large swathes of China’s Manchuria in 1931, the League of Nations, including the US, Britain and France, largely turned a blind eye. As they did when fascist Italy bombed its way into Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935-36, Franco’s Spain subjugated Catalonia in 1938, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany annexed Austria and Czech Sudetenland, also in 1938. 

The complete breakdown in any semblance of international law during the 1930s and the rise of state-sponsored gangsterism paved the way for the Second World War. 

A similar process of degeneration is also well underway in the present day, led largely by the US and its coterie of allies among the NATO alliance and oil-rich Arab dictatorships. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen are but some of the evil fruit from the poison that is coursing through international relations. And yet, ludicrously, Washington accuses Putin and Moscow of behaving like Hitler with a malign 20th Century atavism.

That a defenceless, impoverished country such as Yemen can be openly bombed by hundreds of US-supplied F-15 fighter jets – and for that criminality to be widely endorsed – is a sure sign that the world is once again sliding into the abyss of rampant criminality and the possibility of a more catastrophic all-out war.

Furthermore, Der Spiegel disclosed authoritatively, «Ankara only forced the plane to land after close contact with its Western allies»… The question naturally arises: Was it an incident that had been choreographed with a view to change the dynamics of the Syrian situation? Stranger ways have been found to kick-start wars in history. 

The pattern of the rhetoric may give some clues. Russia, of course, vehemently and promptly denied that it violated international law. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in fact, gave a detailed explanation: «In the wake of all sorts of insinuations spread in connection with the Syrian jet’s landing, I’d like to stress we don’t have secrets in this respect. We’ve cleared out the situation and the truth is that, quite naturally, the jet was not carrying any weapons and certainly couldn’t be carrying them».

He added, «The cargo was supplied by a legal Russian supplier in a legitimate way to a legal customer. It’s electric engineering equipment for a radar station, a dual-purpose equipment that isn’t forbidden by any international conventions. Airway bills for it were filled out in strict compliance with international requirements. Transportation of these cargoes by civil aviation jets is normal practice and this is confirmed by the fact the Turkish authorities offered the crew either to change the route or to land in Ankara before it entered Turkey’s airspace. The captain decided to land because he knew the crew wasn’t doing anything illegal».

The Turkish side has pointedly refused to join issue with Moscow’s narrative. The Turkish statement was actually evasive and loquacious – to the effect that Ankara acted on the basis of «information that the plane was carrying cargo of a nature that could not possibly be in compliance with the rules of civil aviation». Meanwhile, Ankara lost no time to transfer the topic to the diplomatic channel away from the limelight. Russia’s Gazprom has since announced that it will be stepping up the supply of gas to Turkey to offset the shortfall in the supplies from Iran through the winter season. Ankara also since disclosed, almost eight weeks in advance, that President Vladimir Putin will be visiting Turkey on December 3. This is the first point. 

Now, the intriguing part is that it was left to a third party to resort to shrill rhetoric – the United States. The state department spokesperson in Washington used harsh language to allege that Moscow is pursuing a «morally bankrupt» policy on Syria. The spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, «No responsible country ought to be aiding and abetting the war machine of the Assad regime, and particularly those with responsibilities for global peace and security – as UN Security Council members have».

Nuland added, «We [US] have no doubt that this was serious military equipment». Evidently, Nuland was under instruction to go to town on the Syrian plane issue. Why would the US be so overtly keen to introduce high-class polemics? This is the second point. 

The geopolitics is not difficult to understand. The US has been probably hoping all along that Syria would be the wedge that forces apart the partnership between Russia and Turkey, which has witnessed a remarkable upswing through the past decade, helped largely by the understanding and personal rapport at the leadership level between Putin and Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan. 

Russia has significantly expanded its energy cooperation with Turkey, meeting two-thirds of the latter’s gas needs. Russia is set up to build Turkey’s first nuclear plant; the 25 billion dollar project can be a game changer in the overall relationship. The 63 billion cubic meter South Stream gas pipeline is slated to pass through Turkish waters to feed the European markets. 

Evidently, a high level of interdependency is developing between the two countries, which is nothing short of historic in their troubled relationship through centuries, and holding the potential to profoundly impact the geopolitics of a vast region comprising the Black Sea, Caucasus, the Caspian, «Turkic» Central Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. 

Suffice to say, Moscow and Ankara have done well so far to decouple the Russian-Turkish bilateral relationship from the Syrian question. However, whether this is achievable in the coming period remains to be seen. The US rhetoric underscores the complexities. This is the third point. 

Obviously, Moscow realizes that a new criticality is arising in the Turkish-Syrian standoff, which is also amply evident from the growing belligerence in Turkey’s rhetoric toward Damascus as well as its military deployments on the border regions in an operational mode. President Vladimir Putin held a meeting with the advisory Security Council regarding the Syrian situation on Friday. 

Three interlocking vectors

There are three or four interlocking vectors here and their interplay is going to be crucial in the coming weeks. First, much depends on how the situation develops on the ground. The Guardian newspaper reported that Turkey’s eastern Mediterranean city of Antakya has become a meeting point for arms dealers from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon and it is the centre for equipping and arming the rebels in Syria. 

As things stand, Syrian government forces have begun challenging the rebels all over the country. They have had success in Damascus, but face resistance in Aleppo and the northern provinces. Thus, the fate of the covert war depends heavily on Turkey. And there are growing indications that hardliners in Ankara are prevailing. 

In a summing up over the weekend, Deutsche Welle warned that Turkey «risks getting mired» in the Syrian conflict after having «misgauged» it. The commentary noted:

«Weapons deliveries from Turkey remain the most important support the Syrian rebels are receiving, which has helped the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army to secure a strip of territory nearly 20 kilometres deep into the Syrian side on the border with Turkey.

«The majority of the Turkish population has little sympathy for Erdogan’s stance on the Syria conflict. For the first time in his 10 years in office, the prime minister is facing widespread opposition. Half of the country’s electorate voted for his AKP party in last year’s parliamentary election – largely because it was perceived as offering stability to the country. Since then, Turkey has enjoyed high growth rates and now belongs to the biggest 20 economies in the world. With wide sectors of the population having achieved relative prosperity, many Turkish people now fear that Erdogan's aggressive stance towards Syria is endangering that».

Thoughtful Turkish commentators have also voiced similar misgivings. Mehmet Ali Birand, one of Turkey’s seniormost political observers, wrote in Hurriyet newspaper, «The civil war in Syria does not threaten Turkey’s vital interests. In other words, it is not our duty. It should not be our duty to save the Syrian people from al-Assad. Let’s defend them, support them, but we should have boundaries». 

Again, in a devastating column in the pro-government Islamist daily Zaman, prominent Turkish commentator Abdullah Bozkurt wrote on Friday: «The government seems to be divided on how far Turkey should take the matter with Syria. The relentless war lobby is after a «fait accompli» to commit the government and the country to a permanent war in Syria… Opposition parties are against the risky adventure while the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the notion of the war». 

Part of Erdogan’s posturing is due to his expectation that with the nerve-wracking distractions of the election in the US on November 8 behind him, President Barack Obama will revisit the Syrian question. The Obama administration has consistently made it clear that it was not willing to engage in direct military intervention. Its distaste toward intervention probably increased after it transpired that various Saalfi groups and al-Qaeda affiliates have entered the Syrian cauldron. 

Waiting expectantly

Polls indicate that the American opinion supports more sanctions against the Syrian regime and a no-fly zone but no direct intervention or arming of Syrian rebels. But then, there is the hawkish opinion, too. The influential pundit, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington argues that Obama should not remain trapped in policy dilemmas and «hollow posturing» but should actively «help to do the job» – namely, adopt a strategy like in the 1980s when it gave the famous stinger missiles («equalizer») to the Afghan Mujahideen. 

He wrote last week that if only the US could provide similar «equalizers» to the Syrian rebels, it will ensure that the rebel fighters «inflict far more serious casualties» on the government forces and help expand own safe zones and thereby «take advantage of «no fly» or «no move» zones enforced with limited uses of U.S. or allied force, and be able to quickly become far more effective with limited training by U.S. or other Special Forces».

Finally, woven into all this is another new reality – the division among the Arabs themselves about the crisis in Syria. There is a world of difference between the stance of, say, Oman and Kuwait on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the other – or, between Saudi Arabia and Egypt and between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The prominent Arabic daily Al-Hayat wrote bitterly on Saturday:

«The countries of the GCC do not now have the choice to head to the Arab League and then to the [UN] Security Council… This sexpartite bloc perhaps does not have the option of heading to NATO and asking it to intervene… In fact, it may not even be possible to reach unanimous agreement even among these six countries, due to the differences in their stances».

In sum, the US’ regional allies are waiting expectantly like the pair of men in Samuel Beckett’s play vainly for someone named Godot to arrive anytime soon after November 8. To keep themselves occupied in the meanwhile they eat, sleep, converse, argue, sing, play games, exercise, swap hats, and contemplate suicide – in fact, anything «to hold the terrible silence at bay». It may even include intercepting a plane or two.

On September 26 the Syrian issue was tackled by Security Council at foreign ministers level. Formally the discussions were devoted to a concept paper circulated by Germany. The document was devoted to the cooperation between the UN Security Council and the League of Arab Nations in the wake of Arab Spring. (1) The Arab League Secretary General and the representatives of the West used the United Nations Security Council as a platform to condemn Russia for resorting to its veto right. Supposedly that was the reason why the otherwise fruitful cooperation between the UN and the Arab League was blocked. In response Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov said, «the developments in the Middle East and North Africa confirmed once again the need to respect the key principles of the United Nations Charter, above all respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, non-interference in their domestic affairs and non-use or threat of force». (2)

He also informed that on September 26 the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China South Africa) group made a joint statement to emphasize the role of the Geneva communiqué as a basis for finding a way out of the Syrian crisis unlike the Security Council draft resolutions that never came into force. (3) 

At the same time anti-Syrian activities started at the General Assembly session as well as in some Western and Arab capitals. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, said that in view of UN Security Council’s failure to adopt the resolutions the Arab states should interfere themselves into Syria and they had everything necessary to do so. (4) The UN «failure» was used as a pretext to destroy the UN structure. For instance, the foreign minister of Iceland said, «the truth is that the Security Council has become an obstacle to international efforts to address and solve situations such as in Syria». He added, «the Syrian problem is also a wake-up call for the UN with regard to the Security Council. Syria has demonstrated how arcane the Council is, and how out-of-tune it is with the needs of the modern world». Definitely the representative of Iceland talked about the abrogation of veto right that makes it possible that «one of its five permanent members can trump a decision by all 14 others». (5)

Here Lavrov had to prove again that the legal basis for the Syrian crisis management did exist in the form of the Geneva agreement. The Russian minister called for all members of the Action Group to fully confirm the commitments that all of them had taken on in Geneva. Stressing that this was the shortest way to stop the loss of human life, Lavrov emphasized that those who opposed the implementation of the agreement took upon themselves «an enormous responsibility». He said that they, «insist on a ceasefire only by the government and encourage the opposition to intensify hostilities, but in fact they push Syria even deeper in the abyss of bloody internecine strife». The minister made remember that extremists had intensified their activities in Syria, including Al-Qaeda perpetrating terrorist acts against civilians and civil infrastructure. 

On September 28 The United Nations Human Rights Council viewed the new report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. (6) It voted to extend the mandate of the independent panel and to bring in new members into its composition. Besides the citizens of the US and Turkey (!), two new members joined – Vitit Muntarbhorn, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in North Korea and… Carla del Ponte, former the International Criminal Court's former chief prosecutor! The Carla del Ponte’s long track record of charges fabrication speaks for itself. 

The Council’s resolution contains rather tough language. It condemns «the continued widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities and the Government controlled militia Shabbiha, such as the use of heavy weapons and force against civilians, massacres, arbitrary executions, extrajudicial killings, the killing and persecution of protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence and ill-treatment, including against children, as well as any human rights abuses by armed opposition groups». (7) Russia voted against. (8). Before the vote the Russia's representative said this time the member states had "almost found a compromise" pointing out that the current resolution was "more balanced" than the previous ones by also mentioning the fact of violence by opposition and condemning the terrorist acts committed by Syrian militants for the first time. But Russia, she said, could not accept some of the conclusions, including «one sided perspective on the Al-Houla massacre, while similar events were being ignored». The Russian representative pointed out the issue of Houla massacre responsibility remains open. (9)

Thus, the past week was really an «Arab» one…

Psudolanguage, permeated by lies, is being widely enrooted today. The term «Arab Spring» is already used in the UN Security Council for state coups and outside aggression meaning that we have entered the period of «Arab Autumn» and so on… 

Speaking the language of real, not imaginary, values, the Arab Autumn  is a symbol of historic involution of Arab world and the end of prominent role it played in the national liberation movement of colonial and dependent states in the second half of the XX century…

________________________

(1) The enclosure to the letter dated September 6 2012 from the Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. High-level meeting of the Security Council on Peace and Security in the Middle East (Concept paper). UN document: S/2012/686 (September 6, 2012). 

(2) Ref., verbatim report, UN Security Council session, September 26 2012// UN document: S/PV.6841, p.13-14.

(3) BRICS foreign ministers official statement, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs official website: http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/EDD2EE7A4CA9DE0E44257A8600228E6F. 

(4) Ref., The Emir of Qatar address to the 67th session of UN General Assembly, September 25 2012: http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/QA_en.pdf.

(5) Ref., The speech of Iceland's Foreign Minister Össur Skarphéðinsson to the 67th session of UN General Assembly, September 29 2012: http://gadebate.un.org/67/iceland.

(6) More in detail on the report: http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2012/09/21/novyj-vitok-diplomaticheskoj-vojny-protiv-sirii.html.

(7) The UN Human Rights Council resolution S-19/1 – The Deteriorating Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Arab Republic and the Recent Killings in El-Houla //UN Document: A/HRC/RES/S-19/1.

(8) Besides Russia, China and Cuba also voted no on the resolution. Ecuador, the Philippines and Uganda abstained. The document received 41 yes votes. 

(9) Ref., verbatim report, UN Human Rights Council session, September 28 2012//UN Document: A/HRC/21/SR.4.

That the summit schedule was shifted twice before this one at Baghdad, and that only 9 member countries out of total twenty two countries participated in the summit itself reveals a poor story of the League. Even the nine countries participating in the summit did not send their top leaders; rather the member countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar sent junior officials instead of head of states to participate in the summit. It will be interesting to note that this erstwhile powerful body in the North and Northeast Africa and the Gulf, which in the past played effective roles to confront regional crises and develop mechanisms such as Joint Arab Economic Action Charter, has foundered in the emerging global scenario.

One of foremost reasons behind the erosion of credibility of this Arab body, which became prominent during and aftermath of the so called colour revolutions that swept across the Arab world, is the rising menace of sectarianism and animosities based on it between the member countries. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Sunni dominated countries, while countries like Iraq (particularly the post-Saddam Iraq) and Syria are Shia dominated countries. The increasing bonhomie between Iraq and Iran, majority Shia countries, too have not been taken well by the countries like Saudi Arabia which perceives the increasing bonhomie threatening, more because of its animosities with Iran which is recently embroiled in conflict over nuclear programme. It is widely reported in international media that Saudi Arabia expressed readiness to bear the oil burden which arose due to sanctions on Iran. After the overthrow of Saddam (a Sunni) in 2003, Iraq has become the Shia dominated country. In post-Saddam era the majority Shias have taken rein of power in the war torn country. That the summit is being hosted by Iraq itself has been perceived by many local and regional powers as signifying the rising aspirations of the country to become a major regional power. This has also been a subtle sore point for some members of the League. 

The most contentious issue at present that divides the members is the issue of Syria, which is ruled by a Shiite faction called Alawite. Saudi Arabia and Qatar strongly advocated the use of force to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime. In fact, Saudi Arabia has been supporting the opposition groups including the Free Syrian Army to fight Assad’s forces. These countries have also supported the idea of creation of safe zones within Syria, on the border regions with Turkey, which can provide shelters to rebels in order to fight the Assad regime. In the summit, the Prime Minister of Qatar Sheikh Hamad stated, “We are faced with a difficult choice — either we stand by the Syrian people or stand by him (Assad) … It is not to be expected from the Syrians to idly stand by while the regime continues to kill its own people this way.” On the other hand the host of the summit, Iraq strongly opposed any use of force against Syria. The prime minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki stated, “Based on our experience in Iraq, the option to arm either side of the conflict will lead to a regional and international proxy war in Syria.” He emphasized on peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and deliberation. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani stated, “We reiterate our call for a peaceful solution to meet the expectations of the Syrian people without any foreign interference.” In this context, the Kofi Annan plan to defuse the crisis comes to picture. The positive thing is that Syria agreed to abide by the six-point plan, which mainly calls for immediate ceasefire of hostilities, allowing humanitarian assistance, and expression of freedom through peaceful manner. While addressing the summit, the United Nations’ Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon called Syria to immediate abide by the proposal of Annan. 

Syria, one of the founding members of the League was suspended last year. Assad has refused to abide any resolution of the Arab League summit. In fact, it can be safely assumed that the acute differences among the members and sectarian dimensions of the conflict will any process to evolve a consensus to defuse the crisis. On the same day of the Arab League met, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Iran, a close ally of Syria, and met prominent leaders to discuss the Syrian crisis. Turkey has so far been cautious to support a method of forceful resolution of the Syrian conflict. The meeting of six-member Gulf Cooperation Council at Riyadh will take place on 31 March 2012 to further deliberate on the issue. The summit will be attended by the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. In this context, it will be important to point out the stand of the BRICS, which came out clearly during its fourth summit in New Delhi, in which the leaders affirmed their support for a peaceful resolution of crises whether of Iran or of Syria or of Afghanistan.

Another crucial issue that sullies the relations is the role of Al Qaeda, which follows a radical variety of Sunni Islam in propagating methods of violence. The Arab Spring too has witnessed the rising prowess of this radical organization, which has not hidden its intention to target countries like Iraq. Last week a bomb blast in Baghdad killed 52 people. This attack was later claimed by Al Qaeda as perpetrated by its cadres. Hence, one must not delink Al Qaeda from the ongoing Arab politics. It will also be another interestingly study whether the decimation of secular authoritarian regimes in Arab have really dawned genuine democracy, or has emboldened the radical organizations like Al Qaeda. 

In the emerging discourse on regionalism and regional organizations, the study of Arab League offers deep insights into rise and fall of a regional organization. It also serves a pointer that how despite slogans of democracy and development during the Arab Spring, all recent developments are not geared towards achieving these goals. Besides, the recent developments also indicate how sectarianism, terrorism, divergent aspirations have marred the vibrancy of an erstwhile effective organization called Arab League.

The Syrian leadership agreed to carry out the statement’s provisions, but the opposition represented by the Syrian National Council called it “a trick” giving Bashar Assad a chance “to gain time”. At the same time Syrian anti-government groups committed a number of terrorist raids, probably to exert pressure on the mission of Kofi Annan, who visited Damascus. An armed group attacked the Mezze district in Damascus, where a number of military installations are situated. Soon it was encircled and eliminated by government forces. A few terrorist acts – explosive laden cars blown up – took place in the Damask suburbs and in Aleppo, resulting in dozens of civil casualties. 

The information war against Syria continues. The CNN and Euronews say the Syrian government forces, including army units using heavy artillery, attacked the opposition right after the UN Security Council’s statement was adopted killing 70 people. The reference was made to some mythical London-based "Syrian Human Rights Monitoring Centre" that has neither staff nor office. Naturally this piece of information has never been confirmed. Looks like for he first time since the beginning of the Syrian crisis the Human Rights Watch had to say that the Syrian opposition was involved in “kidnappings, torture, forced confessions and summary executions of security personnel and civilians”. The fact many times confirmed by producing documented evidence by Damascus. 

 As a delegation member the author of these lines saw the pictures of mutilated bodies of Syrian servicemen, who died as a result of the tortures committed by anti-government militants whose ranks include Al-Qaeda’s “jihad warriors”. The Istanbul based Syrian National Council, no matter it acts under the NATO’s “cover”, could not offer anything that would resemble even a sorry sight of a program or whatever to make it look like a “legitimate representative of Syrian people”. 

In February 2012 over twenty opposition leaders left the Syrian National Council and established their own body – the “Group of Syrian Patriots”. In March three more prominent opposition leaders joined its ranks saying they were leaving the Council due to “disagreements concerning its policies”. There is nothing to be surprised about: the Syrian National Council is a mixture of groupings and personalities – from liberal-democrats to Muslim brothers, from Kurdish separatists to radical Islamists – all pursuing different, often murky objectives. “Moderate” Muslim brothers and radical Islamists, the ones Syrian National Council’s chairman Burgan Galyun has rather tense relations with, are the most well organized elements. The fact that they managed to convince Abdo Hussameddin, Syria's deputy oil and mineral resources minister, and a few high ranking military leaders (the Syrian official sources say the number is 2, the Syrian National Council says it’s twenty) to join their ranks can be considered as a relative success for the Council. Defector Hussameddin immediately demanded a top position within the Council’s structure and confronted its leadership. Syrian Brigadier-General Mustafa Ahmad Al-Sheikh, the other runaway who fled to Turkey, started another quarrel challenging Colonel Riyad al-Asad, who had joined the Council’s ranks before him, for the leadership of the “Syrian Free Army”. 

With Homs and Idlib cleaned from anti-government armed groups, the Syrian army actually has eliminated the pockets of the organized resistance. Still terrorist acts (explosive laden vehicle blasts) continue. Militant terrorists go on crossing the Syrian boundary. The get funds and arms from the adjacent countries. 

A former Al Jazeera reporter, who has broken ties with the channel, says militants started to penetrate into Syria, from Lebanon in particular, in the first days of Daraa unrest in March 2011, that is long before the “atrocities committed by government” began. In his interview to Euronews, the journalist said he personally saw dozens of militants illegally crossing the Syrian border from Lebanon in March 2011. 

Social, economic and political reforms are taking place in Syria now. According to new law political parties are being established. During our stay in Syria in January 2012 we had a chance to meet the representatives of some of them. They were Liberals, those who represented the Kurds community, the Leftists. They position themselves as patriotic opposition. Unlike the opposition based in Istanbul, they are ready for constructive dialogue with the authorities and have some proposals to put forward. A new constitution referendum took place on February 26, 89, 4% of the voters said yes. The new constitution says nothing about the leading position of the Baath party and contains all elements of a democratic state structure. New parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place in May 2012. All registered political parties can join the race including the opposition abroad, that nevertheless refuses to take part. It should be made clear the present Syrian leadership enjoys mass majority support of the people (in Syria we could see the demonstrations in support of Bashar Assad with dozens of thousands participants). 

Russia, China, the leading Western states and the Arab League joined together in support of the UN Security Council’s statement on Syria. The joint stance gives some hope for peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis. On the other hand the real state of things leaves no place for optimism. Those who signed the statement pursue different, if not outright opposite, goals. 

The prevention of foreign military intervention, political crisis management by holding a dialogue between the leadership and the opposition, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria are the goals of Russia and Chinese diplomacy. By and large it coincides with the position of Iran, Lebanon, to some extent Iraq, Algiers, part of social and political circles in Jordan. The goals of leading NATO members and Israel are the elimination of President Bashar Assad, complete about face of the Syrian policy and finally the dismembership of the state. That’s the way to get rid of an ally of Iran and Palestine resistance, to create conditions for a military strike on Iran. The Israeli leaders have mentioned a possibility of delivering such an attack next month quiet often. At the same time it’s the way to weaken the Shiite influence in Lebanon and Iraq. That’s the reason the information battlefield warriors started to persuade the world that Russia’s signature on the UN Security Council’s Syria statement signifies Moscow’s change of position and its “distancing from the Bashar Assad’s regime”. It has no wish to become its Godfather, as the French Foreign Minister said. This is direct pressure on Russia to make “cede” Syria making it doomed to repeat the fate of Libya. 

As we see it in the given situation, it would be expedient for Moscow and to ask explanations from NATO concerning the results of military intervention in Libya while preserving the same level of relations with Damascus. Libya is the country where the power has been transferred into the hands of radical Islamists, executions and torture take place (the Human Rights Watch doesn’t keep mum on it anymore), the Al Qaeda training camps are built, the country has become a source of instability spreading to other countries (it enough to have a look at the events in Mali). It’s not all. Armed struggle goes on in Yemen, the country situated in the vicinity of strategically important strait from the Red sea to the Indian Ocean. There President Ali Abdulla Saleh stepped down under the US led Western coalition pressure. But his departure never solved a single problem and the whole parts of the country have been gone under the Al Qaeda’s control. 

If we let Bashar Assad be toppled no doubt Syria will become the second Libya. Libya, Syria fallen, post-Soviet space Central Asian states may be the next “turn”. It may even precede the active phase of the plan to destabilize Iran and some African states south of  the Sahara. 

The government offered a plan of democratization of the country’s social-political life that has started to be brought into life in Syria. At the same time armed anti-government militant groups escalated their activities terrorizing the population. New laws on general elections, media, self-government, political parties were adopted. Six new parties were registered by the end of February 2012. Syria has a multiparty system, there had been seven parties represented in the parliament until recently, but the constitution states the leading party power is vested into the Arab Socialist Baath Party. It’s worth to note the Baath social-economic achievements. Syria boasts quite an acceptable living standard for major part of the population, medical care and education are free of charge.

Municipal authorities were elected according to new law in December 2011. New draft constitution is a hot issue for discussion now. The referendum to approve it is slated for February 26 2012. The Baath leading role clause will be cancelled if the majority says so. The new constitution promulgating multiparty system will be a basis for parliamentary elections in May 2012. Patriotic (as they call themselves) opposition parties ready for national dialogue will take part. They encompass liberal-democrats, leftists and those who defend the interests of the Kurdish community.

The Syrian authorities said the democratization process is open for all political forces, including the opposition abroad represented by the Istanbul based Syria National Council. But the “Istanbul” based opposition says Bashar Assad ‘s departure from power is a preliminary condition for any talks. The Council headed by headed by Burhan Ghalioun, a Syrian – French Sorbonne professor, has no program for the future. The only slogan to unite the opposition is the overthrow of Bashar Assad. It brings together various groups with different goals, including Muslim Brothers, Sunni Muslims, Kurdish separatists, and liberal-democratic dissidents. As a rule they live in Europe or the USA. For instance Radwan Ziadeh, head of US funded Damascus Center for Human Rights. The opposition Barad TV channel broadcasts from London. The Syrian human rights monitoring Center headed by Syrian dissident – human rights advocate Rami Abdul Rahman is situated there too. The organization has no office and no employees. One can only guess where they get information from on dozens of peaceful demonstrators losing lives as a result of the Syrian army activities.

The Islamists are the most influential part of the “Istanbul” opposition that has teeth. The Syria National Council rejects any talks with the Syrian leadership. It counts on NATO support and the repetition of the “Libyan scenario”. In January 2012 the Syria National Council established a coordination bureau to interact with the so called Free Syrian Army, an armed anti-government group, representing Syrian army deserters fighting the regime, as its leaders day. In reality the major part of the Free Syrian Army as other terrorists groups, are mercenaries – Syrian or coming from other Arab and Muslim states.

There are other armed Islamic groups besides the Free Syrian Army. Fath al-Islam (Conquest of Islam) and Junut al-Islam (Soldiers of Allah Supporters), Talia al Mukatila (Fighting Vanguard), the military wing of Muslim Brothers, as well as criminal gangs – the total strength is 2 – 4 thousand. Libyan Islamic militant groups headed by Abdelhakim Belhadj have also crossed the Syrian border to commit terrorist acts. Belhadj was a Libyan insurgents leader. He was assigned Tripoli commandant after the Gaddafi’s regime fall (at the beginning of the 2000s he was “the national emir” of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group fighting the Gaddafi regime in Libya). James Clark, a US intelligence official, Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Israeli military said Al-Qaeda makes part of the Syrian armed opposition ranks.

The militants training camps are situated in Lebanon and Turkey. NATO and some Arab states special services are responsible for training and arms supplies. The funding comes from the Persian Gulf monarchies.

The main goal of the states supporting the Syrian “Istanbul opposition” at the beginning of 2012 was mainly the UN decision that would open the way to repeat the “Libyan scenario”. That is to overthrow the Syrian leadership as a result of foreign military intervention under the pretext of “peaceful civilians protection”. The matter is an attempt to topple Bashar Assad, who enjoys the support of the majority of Syrians, with the help of anti-government armed groups and foreign based opposition leads nowhere. For instance that’s why Qatar suggested in January that an “Arab peacekeeping contingent” be sent to Syria. Then in February the League of Arab Nations, first upon the initiative of Morocco then of Saudi Arabia, tried to get a US, Great Britain and France supported resolution, condemning the Syrian leaders for “continuing violence”, through the UN Security Council. Russia’s and China’s tough stance insisting on the Syrian armed opposition’s responsibility for violence and imposing veto on the draft saved Syria from repeating the fate of Libya, when tens of thousands civilians were killed, the civilian infrastructure destroyed as a result of NATO bombings and internal armed conflict. In February France tabled a Syrian leadership condemning resolution to the session of UN General Assembly. The majority of 137 voted for, 12 – against and 17 abstained.

On February 24 a “Friends of Syria” meeting is to take pace in Tunisia. The Syrian leadership received no invitation and, as Washington said, Russia’s participation is “not needed”. Russia refused to take part. The USA, Great Britain, France, Turkey, the Arab League and the “Istanbul opposition” are among participants. They concentrate forces for a military action. The US reconnaissance aircraft already fly over the Syrian airspace, some sources say, the British special operations forces are already operating in the territory of Syria.

Not once the USA and Israel condemned Syria for support of “international terrorism”, anti-Israeli Palestinian groups and “Hezbollah” movement. They count on regime change in Syria and dismemberment of the country into a few small quasi states. Rivalry between Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran for leadership in the region is also taking place. Syria is a long time Iran’s ally, the alliance relationship going back to the Iran-Iraq war, and includes religious ties (the Syrian leadership is mainly Alawite, a form of Shiite branch of Islam), it’s weakening meets the Turkey’s interests. The ruling party and leadership of Turkey, represented by moderate Muslim Islamists (the prime-minister and president come from the ranks of the Muslim Brothers Association), have sympathy for Syrian Muslim Brothers stance against the government. By and large the Persian Gulf monarchies take the same stance. They oppose Iran that is seen by them as a potential threat. They enjoy great influence on the Arab League. Their interests coincide with the interest of leading NATO members. Still such Arab League members as Algiers, Iraq, Sudan, a significant part of social-political structure of Jordan and Lebanon (the National Patriotic Movement of General Aun) support the Syrian leadership, though they do not always make their stand known with appropriate resoluteness. The situation boosts the role of Russia and China that become key links in the process of overcoming the Syrian crisis.

Russia’s stance is solid and irreversible. It insists no foreign armed intervention in Syria is acceptable. The stance was confirmed during Russia’s and China’s veto in the UN Security Council and Russia’s Foreign Minister S. Lavrov and head of Foreign Intelligence Service M. Fradkov’s visit to Syria on February 21. Russia and Syria historically enjoy long time friendship and cooperation relationship.

The fall of Syrian regime would be a big step into the direction of further destabilization in the Middle East, like it is taking place in Lebanon, where stand off between supporters and opponents of Syrian regime is taking place. The Bashar Assad’s downfall would strengthen the position of radical Islamists. Such Al Qaeda leaders as al-Zawahiri declared their support for the Syrian radical opposition in February 2012. Syria has a significant weapons arsenal that can get into the Islamists hands like it took place in Libya. The history knows many examples when the West used the “jihad warriors” to achieve its strategic goals. The US September 11 2001 experience doesn’t hold them back.

First of all it’s Russia’s tough stance on Syria that saves this country from foreign intervention and NATO bombings now. By defending Syria and containing escalation of aggression against Iran, Russia stands for its own security defending its distant borders.
 

It became clear immediately when protests erupted in Syria in March, 2011 that Washington would welcome serious arguments in favor of Assad's ouster. The unrest in the country came as a predictable – and by no means the last – phase in the sequence of revolts inspired by the US and other countries in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain with the aim of tailoring the maps of North Africa and the Middle East to the liking of global heavyweights. Later on, the slogan of regime change in the name of “democracy” similarly popped up in Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman.

It did not evade watchers that mass protests in Syria began in the southern city of Daraa and mostly took place on Fridays, at the Muslims' post-prayer time. Due to the clearcut tendency, Syria's brewing revolt was even dubbed “the Friday Revolution”. The unrest quickly spilled from Daraa to other Syrian cities, with the protesters' agenda – the abolition of the state of emergency law and the uprooting of the decades-old regime – borrowed with minimal adjustments from the Tahrir Square. Unlike Mubarak in Egypt, Syria's Assad lifted the state of emergency right away, but the protesters evidently had much more far-reaching goals in mind. 

Syria, it must be noted, was among the founders of the Arab League: on October 7, 1944, the protocol of intentions with a pledge to create the organization was penned in Alexandria by representatives of Syria, Oultrejordain, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt. The list of the Arab League's stated objectives included political coordination and mutual assistance in maintaining sovereignty among its members. In line with the above, in 1948 the Syrian Army fought in the Arab-Israeli war which the Arab League declared on the Jewish state nurtured by Great Britain. 

It is common knowledge that the relations between Arabs and Israel dominate the entire realm of Middle Eastern politics. They could still be perceived as a background theme in Europe or the US, but in fact Washington and the European capitals have made it the cornerstone of their strategy to skillfully capitalize on the region's enduring conflict. 

From its birth date and on, Israel plays the role of the West's – mostly, Washington's – political instrument applied to fracture the Arab world. The pan-Arab unification in the Middle East proved to be a short-living process: Syria and Egypt merged within the United Arab Republic on February 22, 1958, with Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser as president and a number of Syrians holding key posts, but the marriage fell apart three years later under pressure from the US secret diplomacy. Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights became a reality six years later. In 1973, Syria, in concert with other Arab countries, started the Ramadan (alternatively, Yom Kippur) War in which the situations at the Syrian and Egyptian segments of the front differed beyond comparison. Israel suffered a considerable death toll in the ferocious Quneitra fight occasionally referred to as Syria's Stalingrad, but the Golan Heights remained under Israeli control even after 1974, when UN peacekeepers were deployed to the region and a demilitarized zone was established. 

Inspired by the UN inability to reverse the occupation, in 1981 Israel passed a piece of legislation proclaiming its sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The same year the US Security Council annulled the annexation in a special resolution, and the UN General Assembly reiterated the point in 2008, but to no avail. As of today, the Golan Heights are an economically prosperous region in Israel which is practically free of unemployment and outputs over 50% of Israel's mineral water, around 25% of wines, and up to 50% of certain types of fruits and produce. Mild climate and historical landmarks attract a steady flow of tourists to the region which also supplies a third of Israel's potable water. That should, in particular, explain Israel's hate for Iran which has always been backing Syria. 

President Assad was re-elected in Syria for another seven-year term slightly under four years ago, garnering 97.62% of the vote in a referendum. The pertinent question is: why Assad who is evidently popular in Syria is figure totally unacceptable to the Arabs at the helm in the Arab League? The Arab League lauded the West's new onslaught on the Middle East and volunteered a blessing to unspecified “peacekeeping forces” that would be dispatched to Syria to dislodge Assad. Who, under the scenario, would take his place? Either the Arab League is moving too fast while the Western intelligence services are unprepared to offer a candidate or those leave it entirely to the Arab League to dispose of Assad. “I don't see the way forward in Syria as being Western boots on the ground in any form, including in any peacekeeping form. I think they would need to come from other countries, rather than Western nations. Of course, if such a concept can be made viable, we will be supporting it in all the usual ways”, said British foreign secretary William Hague. Paris seems similarly unsure, considering that French foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero was quoted as expressing “strong support for the Syrian opposition” and approving the decision to appoint a "special envoy" from the Arab League for Syria, but stopped short of mentioning an intervention under the peacekeeping flag. 

Indeed, the Arab League's initiative to have third-party forces sent to Syria to induce the transfer of power in the country from the legitimate authority to the opposition should read as inviting an intervention. This is, by the way, how things are seen from Damascus. A statement released by the Syrian government said the people of Syria hoped that the Arab League's secretary general and Arab countries' ministers would condemn the blasts in Damascus and Aleppo and call for stopping the instigations campaign or the financial support of terrorists in Syria. The statement also made it clear that the Arab League's meddling in the Syrian domestic affairs was indicative of an anti-Syrian conspiracy and would not make the Syrian government abandon the efforts to restore stability and security in the country. 

Unlike the Arab League, Damascus has no chance to get heard in the West. Considering that Syria was among the founders of the League, it would be interesting to get an idea from whose name the group might be speaking under current circumstances. 

This is the point at which simple arithmetic should come into play. The Arab League is a motley assortment of 22 countries. It counts on board Qatar, the world's champion in terms of the per capita GDP drawing over 50% of it and 70% of the national budget from the oil and gas export. Qatar's top oil and LNG clients are Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, and all of them being US political allies. Kuwait, another Arab League country, holds 9% of the global oil reserves, owes around 95% of its budget revenues to the oil export, and ranks 7th in the world in per capita GDP. Kuwait's list of buyers is more or less the same as above: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the US, and Singapore. In Algeria, oil and gas export accounts for 60% of the budget revenues. The export is mainly absorbed by the US, Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Canada. The core businesses of the United Arab Emirates are fuel re-export plus the sales of crude and natural gas. The country extracts 2.2 bpd of oil which mostly goes to Japan. The key trade partners of Morocco are Spain, France, the US, Belgium, and Italy. Overall, the biggest Arab League economies thrive on oil and, by virtue of energy export, depend entirely on the West and its oriental allies. It is an easy guess that the Arab interests do not top the priorities lists of those who sit on such energy riches. At the same time, countries like Mauritania, where the per capita GDP measures 185^th on the global scale, most of the foodstuffs come from France, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and the US, and 40% of the population are struggling below the poverty level, or Somalia, which survives on piracy and semi-nomadic cattle-breeding, naturally have almost no say in the Arab League's affairs. The survey gives a perfect picture of how easily Washington can direct the Arab League and use it as an anti-Arab weapon.