Clearly, Syria is a large and complex crisis with no easy solution, but the default conclusion that the repressive regime in Damascus must be overthrown is an instinctive reaction that should be challenged. The least difficult route to ending the violence in Syria is not through regime change but changing the regime. International efforts should not be focused on military intervention but on changing behaviour where it matters - in the corridors of power in Damascus, and specifically in the House of Al-Assad.
It is obvious that Bashar Al-Assad is out of his depth. He inherited an autocratic mantle he was ill-suited, ill-prepared and ill-equipped for. Patently, his regime can ruthlessly oppress but he is no ‘natural’ tyrant, lacking the fearsome or psychotic persona of an Idi Amin, Saddam Husain or Colonel Gaddafi. Instead, being tall and thin with a high forehead and flimsy moustache, there is something Fawlty-esque about him, while his quiet and slightly squeaky voice is more suited to a doctor than a dictator. After all, he chose to follow a medical career and had his eldest brother Basil not been killed in a car accident in 1994 Bashar would have continued his ophthalmologist studies at London’s Western Eye Hospital. Rarely can the heir apparent of an authoritarian regime been so devoid of raw and lifelong ambition. How Saddam’s pitiless sons must have looked across the border with bemusement and contempt, for theirs was a proper apprenticeship in tyranny.
In the event, Bashar had only 6 years in which to prepare for the dynastic throne and to replace his previous desire to save life and heal people with a cruel determination to hold onto power regardless of human cost. Eleven years later his regime is slaughtering civilians and the current crisis has exposed that he lacks the skills, qualities and power to deal with the emergency around him. Prior to this calamity his decade in office was characterised by statements and policies which sent out mixed and confusing messages and he remained an enigma: was he a tyrant happy to oppress at home and offend outsiders, or a moderate who would reform Syria and fully rejoin the international community? Foreign governments should have recognised this dichotomy and done more to help Dr Jekyll put down Mr Hyde. Their failure to do so is costing many Syrians dear.
The vacillation in Bashar’s rule may indicate one or more of the following: a dithering and indecisive personality that cannot govern effectively, a poor attempt to follow a dual-path approach which introduces slow change whilst keeping regime hawks happy, or a weak presidency that cannot exert authority over the views of hard-liners who hold real power in Syria. None of these possibilities equip him to respond adequately to the demands for change his people deservedly ask for. His increasingly fantastic appraisals of the situation in Syria suggest he has a dubious grip on reality, his refusal to implement concrete democratic changes call into question his leadership qualities, and the continued murderous oppression in parts of Syria indicates that, if he wants to stop the violence, he has little real authority over his regime. Syria is adrift without a true Captain at the helm and instead of closing Embassies, making bombastic statements and taking half-hearted threatening measures, the international community should be doing more to help Assad become the leader Syria needs. He has had responsibility thrust upon him, and evidently he is not up to the task. The Syrian people need help, but so does their President. Redeem him, and that will help them. Of course this would be an extremely difficult task but changing the regime would be less difficult and less bloody than regime change. It would also provide a better idea of what Syria will become where other popular options like ‘arm the rebels’ merely open the lid on Pandora’s Box.
Lacklustre international efforts to engage positively with Bashar Al-Assad over the past decade (when did a British, US or European Head of State last visit Damascus?) make influencing him now much more difficult. The 2011 window of opportunity in which to do so before violence in Syria spiralled out of control has passed. Yet the Herculean task needed now to establish a détente with Damascus that engaged with Assad and cultivated positive change in Syria is more achievable than an imposed military intervention. One is just within the art of the possible, the other is not, and it was refreshing to hear a Syrian opposition group member on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme reiterating the senselessness of pursuing impossible military options. Sadly, by prematurely recognising Syrian opposition groups as the de facto authority in Syria the UK and other key states have already decided that Bashar is so thoroughly part of the problem that he cannot become part of the solution. However, the refusal of Russia and China to do so keeps a bridge open by which a way to engage with Assad might still be achieved.
Of course, if Bashar has transmogrified from a career physician to psychopathic tyrant then efforts to exploit his potential as a moderate are absolutely pointless and regime change may be inevitable. But if he is an accidental tyrant floundering out of his depth, at a loss on how to manage change in Syria, isolated, weak and unable to oppose hawks within his own power base, then international efforts should be made to reach out to him, to encourage any moderate instinct, improve his ability to lead and govern peacefully, to strengthen his political authority and weaken the position of hard-liners who advocate oppression.
If Assad is being pulled in two directions, within himself and within the regime, foreign governments must do more to promote the doctor and not the dictator in him. Focussing on impossible military options and treating him as a pariah may be popular responses but they will do little to relieve the agony of the Syrian people. Perhaps it is better to accept that he retains significant popular support, that his regime is not vulnerable and that, despite the present catastrophe, the hope many Syrians had of a greater liberty under his rule can still be peacefully achieved. That may be a remote possibility but it is worth pursuing.
Paul Smyth
14 Mar 12
No comments:
Post a Comment