Thursday, April 5, 2012

It is written for Assad too

When it comes to strategy adopted to encourage regime change uprisings in the Arab world, from Tunis to Syria, the Western diplomatic measures wear an exhausted look.

“Pledging aid to meet humanitarian crisis,” issuing “deadlines” and “warnings” are high on its agenda to bring down the regime in Syria. Contrary to its tit-for-tat strategy in Libya and Egypt, the West and other nations engaged in bringing peace are moving on a slow track in Syria.

Compared to the eliminated despots like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi or ousted autocrats like Hosni Mubarak and Ali Abdullah Saleh, Bashar Al Assad was lucky to get a time-taking approach. He was moulded in liberal qualities and values of life than others. And naturally, the expectation on Assad was more on embracing reforms within a very limited timeframe.

What do these tyrants smell like? Their wives are better to say that. Haven't they experienced nauseating smell of innocent bloods when they mate?

Assad continues crushing all dissenting voices with an iron fist and clings to power, obviously with the backing of two powerful allies, China and Russia, who took it as a golden opportunity to establish their platform in global affairs over the West and Europe reeling under economic woes.

The timing is perfect for all, except the common man, who is struggling to make both ends meet amid spiralling price rises and lack of opportunities.

Reacting to post-Mubarak Egypt, an Egyptian man settled in the UAE, on condition of anonymity said, “Now we could at least think about driving own car in my country. You know when Mubarak was in power, the poor became poorer and the rich grew richer. All the money was rested with the powerful politicians. Now there is hope.”

Hope for a better world, dignified life is the driving force behind all the revolutions that had happened across the world. Think about French and Russian revolutions; independence struggles in America and India; apartheid movement in South Africa, Palestine Intifada, people took to streets for human dignity and their rights. The pages of history were full of such fighting against unbalanced societal norms.

True, a spark ignited by Bouz Azizi, a Tunisian vegetable vendor, has gripped the region for a second thought on its way of functioning. Western nations who were looking for an entry into the region for an arms sale, which was set by an “imminent Iranian nuke threat,” seized the opportunity to spread its “democratic” aspirations.

In a short span, people frustrated by economic crisis and exposed to various changes happening across the globe embraced Azizi’s reaction for ushering in a new life. No doubt, he made them think. When traditional media failed to present an objective picture of realities, social media came to their rescue. The rest happened before our eyes.

Twitter and Facebook revolutions became real uprisings; and we became more unlucky than lucky to be part of a history being written in bloodshed – unlucky because even in the 21st century mankind is engaged in killing each other; lucky because it is not as brutal as those in earlier days.

Powerful modern warfare looks tender compared to barbaric methods of killing, but the casualty is more than in older days. The worst of all, sophisticated weapons could make anyone a bloodthirsty enemy to kill an opponent.

But now a laid-back attitude has come to the Western nations in supplying arms to the Syrian rebels and fanning out revolts. Developments in the coming days will say whether it is because of Assad or fear of being blamed for encouraging a never-ending conflict in the region.

Whatever, the West has fanned regime change movements in the region to uphold “democracy” in their oil hotspots. But, however hard they try to make the authorities accountable for the bloodbath in respective regions, how could the so-called advocates of democracy deny their hand in creating a history written in innocent blood?

When Arab Spring was going on in the region, an equal movement named Occupy was spreading across the US and other European nations. And it is still going on without bearing fruit. Nobody is taking arms in their hands in the Occupy countries except demonstrations and occupation of public properties. It is not so difficult to realise that the Western interests in the region are purely for springing democracies. Their levels of intentions are much higher than that.

So who are real warmongers – the one who supply arms and ammunition or the one who use them for self-defence?


  1. Well said Nazeem! It’s a moment for concrete politics. The West needs Russia’s help in removing Assad without a civil war, and Russia needs to broker a transition to bolster its future influence in the Arab world. That’s the pragmatic logic that’s driving Annan’s peace effort.
    Political change won’t come to Syria without some bloodshed. Over the past year, it has been one-sided, with perhaps 10,000 opposition fighters and civilians slaughtered by Assad’s forces, but there’s bound to be some settling of scores.
    The alternative to a diplomatic soft landing is a war that shatters the ethnic mosaic in Syria. It’s easy to imagine Sunni militias gaining control of central cities such as Homs, Hama and Idlib, while Alawites retreat to parts of Damascus and Latakia province in the north. Assad might still claim to be president in this scenario, but he would be little more than a warlord. It’s a grim scenario in which Western air power would have limited effect.