SPY EYES

Last week Ban Ki-moon slammed the UN Security Council for inaction. 18 months of slaughter were silently witnessed as the East refused to meet the West. Today we have footages of weeping mothers holding their children’s dead bodies and aerial bombardment of innocent civilians struggling for a free, democratic and liberal Syria. The civilian death toll stands at a tall 20,000 according to the United Nations. Losing credibility, the United Nations Security Council needs to act up. And so, Ban Ki-moon is building a stronger case for intervention. And after 5 days of frustration the knights in shining armor shove aside all pretence of ‘cooperating’. Hilary Clinton stated yesterday that the US can act upon Syria unilaterally.
Had Russia and China been on the same page as their Western counterparts the procedure would not have been simple either. Theoretically:
1) Looking at the international system, and defining the role of the Security Council.
2) How must a sovereign state with an insurgency within its borders be treated by the international community?
3) On-the-ground: historic grievances, developing a deeper understand of the suffering.
For the first step, the role of the Security Council has been defined as ‘peacekeeping’. However, ‘bringing’ peace via gunpowder drones and ‘going-after-them’ has failed so far. We have Iraq, Afghanistan and the Northern areas of Pakistan where extremism has only increased since peacekeeping operations have been carried out by NATO. People were better off without NATO’s help. Rather they blame the World for watching while NATO troops ravaged their country. But then again wasn’t Saddam a brutal tyrant whose power was no match for the Iraqi people suffering under him? Saddam had become invincible because of prior support from the West. Here the second step is important: where does international law precede state law? Saddam Hussein, Muamar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Shah of Iran: all dictators who have enjoyed unconditional support from the West. While in some cases like Pakistan’s the transition to democracy was relatively smooth, in the case of Libya, Egypt, and Iraq millions have suffered and still continue to. This is the result of a vicious cycle of international intervention, justified on moral grounds (because humane is the only language acceptable). Governments are supported from outside, made artificially strong, and in any clash more blood is spilt. Artificially boomed dictatorships, and even democracies pose a threat to the people.
Thirdly, the conflict must not be addressed in isolation of its own history, and the international stakes involved. In an increasingly global world, where the ‘international’ citizen’s voice is a heavy variable in the equation of destiny, it is our duty to be critical of the narrative being sold. Creating a good side versus a bad side (based on vested interests in the region) has been a gimmick used and abused. But are real conflicts as simple as mainstream media suggests? When did Assad, Mubarak, allies of Western liberal governments become the bad guys?  When their opposition acquired a voice? Or another reason could be when they stopped being obedient.
So far, the only driving force into a conflict has been ‘humanitarian’ on the outside but self interest for the moneyed classes on the inside. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were a myth created in time to exploit the insecurities of people immediately after 9/11. Today Iraq is best explained in the words of Dahlia Wasfi.
Conflict resolution is about pouring water over the fire, rather than picking a side and then promoting their story. The first mistake we make as the audience is ignoring the complex nature of conflict. It is absurd to assume that there are only two sides to the ‘civil war’ in Syria: the rebels versus Assad. At this point the United States is moving in to help the anti-Assad, pro-democracy party through covert operations. Saudi intelligence is playing a crucial role under the expertise of Prince Bandar bin Sultan and across the border goodies are transported from Turkey and Jordan. David Ignatius compares this situation to the CIA backed Mujahideen and their victory in Afghanistan in 1980. In retrospect would proponents of liberalism want to feed those very freedom fighters? And was a similar narrative not built back then?  Now Russia sits on the Security Council negotiation table, while the Mujahideen threaten global security.
In Egypt CIA chose the Muslim Brotherhood and won democracy for the Egyptians. Later when the ‘dark side of the Muslim brotherhood’ became known, they had already secured the spot they wanted. And why would the United States want the Muslim brotherhood? This is like the chicken and egg question. Did the loyalties come first or the funds? Not really. Mubarak had lost popular support and then the democratic Muslim brotherhood seemed a decently promising new ally. After a while it became known that internationally recognized heroes also had committed crimes and it wasn’t all ‘for and by the people’. The sad reality is that now the Muslim brotherhood has exactly the kind of power that is harmful for the people.
While Syria’s fate is still in the pipeline, and Assad’s regime is massacring innocent people, it isn’t the people who are fighting Assad’s forces, but opposition parties that have their eyes on the throne. How united these opposing ‘pockets’ are? And what level of external support are they enjoying to be so adamantly vehement about toppling the Assad regime is a scary prospect. Nobody wants to bet on a losing horse, and the West never has. While the Middle East floods with ideas the American taxpayer has been spoon fed there is no way the United States could have ignored the voices of the Syrian twitterati.
The media in such instances becomes a weapon creating victims of its own. While the people of Syria have a history of opposing the Alawites, it is the strong opposition parties that are fighting this war for a bigger share in the pie. In the end, the people suffer as power is transferred to another group that has already sold its loyalties.
Tacstrat Analysis