Assad

How should the world deal with a determined tyrant?

For over a year now, unarmed Syrians have marched bravely in the streets, demanding an end to the tyranny of Bashir al-Assad. For most of that year, they were met with callous brutality that shocked the world.

Over the last 12 months, the UN estimates over 9,000 Syrians have been killed. More than twice that number have been injured. The killing has not stopped. The brutality escalates.

Each day since Syria’s version of the Arab Spring began, the news routinely bring us the horrible numbers: Syrian citizens killed by sniper fire, pointblank shooting at funeral processions, howitzers fired into urban centers and tanks shelling dwellings. The numbers just roll on and on. The regime in Damascus lies to the rest of the world just as routinely even as evidence of the mass murders mount.

The uprising in Syria began shortly after the dramatic popular revolution in Tunisia. That seemed like a picnic. The Syrians must have imagined that, by the force of numbers, they could force a dynasty that ruled for over four decades to quietly leave. Bashir, after all did appear to be a lot more civilized than his late father. Perhaps, he might easily acknowledge that democracy’s time has come in a country that has only known despotism.

After Tunisia, Egypt happened. The revolution was not as easy. Tahrir Square became a battleground. But the despot of Cairo, having lost the support of the army, chose internal exile — and probably a modus vivendi that will allow him to escape the gallows.

Then Libya came along. This was much bloodier. A real civil war happened. A massacre of dissident cities was averted only when the NATO, led principally by France and Britain, intervened from the air and pulverized Gadhafi’s armor and artillery from the air. In the aftermath, tribal tensions now threaten to tear Libya apart.

Revolutions are never predictable. Often, the revolution begins feeding on its infants.

The uprising in Yemen is even more problematic. It is burdened by tribal and ideological animosities. The al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula is attempting to define the outcomes of the power struggle in a manner the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt did not even dare think about. The civil war sputters to this day.

Syria is a society comparable to Iraq where Baathist rule enabled the consolidation of a modern nation-state despite the deep divisions between the Shiite majority, the powerful Sunni minority and a large Kurdish population that would rather have nothing to do with both.

Syria, too, has been nominally ruled by its own Baathist party, although that is really a mask for dynastic rule by the Assad father and son. As in neighboring Iraq, the authoritarian Baathist state has been the only means to hold together a modern nation state against the crazy patchwork of religious factionalism, ethnic antagonisms and regional rivalries.

Many of those who support the Assad regime do not profess undying love for the ruling family. They fear that without the tough rule exercised by Assad, the country will fall apart.

Assad plays on that fear. He thrives on the idea that without a strong center, religious and ethnic divisions will rise to the surface. Without Assad, they say, there will be no Syria.

While Assad is there, however, there will be no democracy. The minorities will continue to be persecuted. The secret police will continue doing the murderous things they do. The future will bring nothing but even more tyranny.

Assad might have annoyed the Arab League. The League, a few months ago, sent in monitors in the hope of checking the wanton killing going on within Syria. The monitors proved ineffectual and were soon withdrawn.

The Arab League countries have withdrawn their ambassadors to Damascus. That did not faze Assad, whose forces went on killing as usual. The rebellious city of Homs is now virtually in ruins from continuous shelling by Assad’s forces.

The Assad regime may have annoyed a powerful neighbor: Turkey. But the rising regional power could do little, because doing too much might rally Arab sentiment against the Turks.

Iran staunchly supports Assad. In the global arena, Russia and China have served as Syria’s most important sponsors, effectively blocking one UN resolution after another.

The European Union wants a dramatic international effort to end the Assad regime and nudge the country towards a democratic transition. But the Europeans are bogged down with their own financial problems and the most vociferous governments are not likely to win popular support for yet another adventure in the Middle East.

The only thing going on is a one-man shuttle diplomacy featuring former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan.

Anan, backed up with a mandate from both the UN and the Arab League, has drawn up a peace plan for Syria beginning with an immediate cessation of violence. He has been in Damascus and Beijing. He is bringing in the Russians behind his plan.

The Assad regime publicly subscribed to Anan’s peace plan but went on with its daily killing nevertheless. How can one negotiate with a regime that is so shamelessly untrustworthy?

Meanwhile, within Syria, the anti-Assad forces seem hopelessly irreconcilable. There is a ragtag Free Syrian Army, composed mainly of defectors from Syria’s regular military forces. But it is an ineffectual force.

The anti-Assad forces are, like the rest of society, deeply divided along religious and ethnic lines. Much work needs to be done to put together a workable political alternative to the despotism of Assad.

Meanwhile, scores of Syrians are killed by the day. There is no clear political option away from the daily killings going on.