A Bleak Outcome for Syria
Opinion | December 12, 2012 3:31 pm
Edmond Y. Azadian
Syria has been one of the most stable countries in the Middle East and
home for the most affluent Armenian community attached to its roots
and heritage.
The deportations and the Genocide of 1915 ended in Northern Syria;
millions perished in Der Zor and survivors settled in Aleppo. For many
decades Aleppo has educated and provided writers, editors, teachers as
well as political and religious leaders to the Armenian communities in
the Middle East and beyond. That is why all calls and appeals around
the world to help Armenians in Syria emanate not only from a
humanitarian concern, but from a rightful gratitude that the Diaspora
Armenians owe to that embattled community.
For many years, that proud and prominent Armenian community has proven
to be a thorn in the side of the Turks, especially with its clout in
Syria and its Martyrs Monument in Der Zor, bordering modern-day
Turkey. Pictures and news broadcast from Syria painfully present the
destruction inflicted on the Der Zor Church and monument by Turkey’s
hired guns to overthrow the government in Syria.
In addition, threats are being directed at Armenians in Kessab to
abandon the region, which they have inhabited since Roman times.
Kessab was also situated in the southeastern border of the Cilician
principalities and the kingdom which lasted for 300 years. Therefore,
within the framework of the larger Syrian conflict, Turkey is
conducting a mini-genocide as its attempts at eradicating the Armenian
people from its original habitat continue.
Of course, this does not concern or bother the parties involved in the
Syrian war, which is continuing ferociously and thus far has claimed
more than 40,000 casualties, including many Armenians.
Each party has its own objective in destroying Syria. Therefore, it
will be our concern to point out the reality and pursue a policy which
will help our community in Syria, whether or not that policy is in
synch with the goals of the parties engaged in this bloody conflict.
No one can exonerate the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his
father, Hafez Assad, from being dictators. But Armenians have been
protected and enjoyed a privileged life under both rulers. The Syrian
people have also experienced prosperity despite all outside pressures
to isolate the country economically.
The irony in this conflict is, as pointed out by remarks by Robert
Fiske, Middle East correspondent of the Independent daily of London,
that a host of Middle Eastern despots, beginning in the tiny
principality of Qatar and ending in the medieval monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, have been commissioned to bring democracy to Syria.
Another such medieval monarchy, Morocco, has also joined the fray in
hosting and organizing Syrian opposition groups on its territory.
Along with the other `messengers of democracy,’ this corrupt kingdom
has been fighting the Polisario Front freedom fighters to keep their
people in Western Sahara under its domination.
Of course, Syria being on the fault line of East-West confrontation –
throughout the Cold War and beyond – it has been on the wrong side of
the Middle Eastern chessboard of politics.
First, being a bastion of Arab nationalism on the frontline with
Israel has irritated the West tremendously. This war has nothing to do
with democracy; it is a grand scheme to eliminate one by one all the
regimes in the region considered threats to Israel, and some of the
Arab regimes engaged in the battle have become accessories to that
policy.
The other `mistake’ of the Syrian regime is to be aligned with Iran,
and they are both considered Russian allies by default in the
continuing Cold War. Russia also has its own interests in the region;
the collapse of the Assad regime may have a domino effect on the
Iran-Syria axis, at a high cost to Moscow’s foreign policy.
The Syrian war, which began with peaceful protests against Assad’s
regime in March 2011, escalated into a civil war, mainly because of
outside interference and the launch of a proxy war for foreign
interests seeking regime change in Syria. Recently a radical Islamist
group seized large swathes of a Syrian military base west of Aleppo,
consolidating its control over the territory, near the Turkish border,
as reported by Agence France Presse. It was most revealing to find in
a report filed by Elad Benari in the Israel National News that `many
of the fighters are non-Syrians and one of the leaders, who identified
himself as Abu Talha, said he is from Uzbekistan.’
Any political analyst has to be endowed with the wildest possible
imagination to the see the aspirations of the Syrian people for
democracy in a thug from Uzbekistan, of all places.
Of course the West has been using these extremist groups to achieve
short-term goals with the consequence of creating long- term threats
to its own security. Osama bin Laden was armed by the US with shoulder
held Stringer rockets to shoot down Soviet MiG jets in Afghanistan,
but who ended up bringing down the World Trade Center in New York.
These groups have proved over time that they are loose cannons
dedicated to their own extremist ideology and can only harm civilized
societies.
The Syrian conflict has spilled over from the Middle Eastern borders
into a worldwide confrontation between East and West, with the US and
the European Union insisting on regime change in Syria while Russia
and China blame foreign interference in Syria in the United Nations.
Recent meetings between President Vladimir Putin and Premier Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov were not able to break the deadlock.
Russian officials have repeatedly said that Moscow is not insisting
that Assad remain in power, but that his fate must not be decided by
foreign governments or external forces including the UN Security
Council. Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, has specifically
indicated that `We cannot say, sitting in Ankara or London or Qatar
that Assad must go. That cannot be, it is not viable. Such decisions
could potentially lead to a worsening of the situation.’
The US secretary of state, visiting Dublin, has countered the Russian
position by directing her criticism to the internal developments in
Russia, away from the Syrian conflict.
In her recent pronouncements, she seems more and more like a Cold War
relic, and perhaps, she is planning her political comeback in the 2016
presidential election with that agenda.
Before her meeting with Lavrov, Mrs. Clinton took aim at what she
described as a new wave of repressive tactics and laws aimed at
criminalizing US outreach efforts. `The trends are indicative of a
larger reversal of freedoms for the citizens of Russia, Belarus,
Turkmenistan and other countries that emerged from the breakup of the
Soviet Union two decades ago. There is a move to re-Sovietize the
region…. It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a
Customs Union, it will be called a Eurasian Union and all of that,’
she said, referring to the Russian-led efforts for greater regional
integration. `But let’s not make a mistake about it. We know what the
goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or
prevent it.’
In the above quote by Mrs. Clinton, Armenia falls within `other
countries that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union.’ And
Moscow has been twisting the arm of that `other country’ to join the
Eurasian Union. Therefore, no mater what foreign policy may Armenia
adopt, it is perceived by the Foggy Bottom to be in the Russian sphere
of influence and that answers many questions which have been torturing
Armenians; why doesn’t Mr. Obama use the word `Genocide?’ Why doesn’t
the State Department criticize Azerbaijan for destroying Armenian
monu- ments in Jugha? Why doesn’t Karabagh conflict get solved? Why
doesn’t Washington demand Turkey to end blockading Armenia? Why does
the US aid to Armenian dwindle?
All the answers to these questions are within the subtext of the new
Cold War being reconfigured.
Coming back to Syria, which generated this global analysis, two major
prospects are very obvious. First, no matter whatever the outcome of
the conflict, the vibrant Syrian-Armenian community will not be the
same any longer.
Next, in the a broader perspective of the Arab Spring (or Nightmare) –
which the Syrian conflict is part of – the policy is achieving its
goal in this artificially-created turmoil because no one (except as a
form of lip service) is talking any more about the Palestinian people
nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From: A. Papazian
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2012/12/12/a-bleak-outcome-for-syria/