Syria: Pros and Cons of Intervention by Riad Kahwaji

The situation in Syrian is getting more complicated. It has indeed become thornier with the glaring and foolhardy interferences of powerful states aiding the oppositions against the Syrian government. Riad Kahwaji has an interesting observation to share:

Syria: Pros and Cons of Intervention

By Riad Kahwaji

CEO - INEGMA

Friday, 08 June 2012 00:00

The West ignored calls by the Arab states for arming the rebels and creating a safe-zone in northern Syria. (Reuters)

Nearly fourteen months have passed and over 11,000 people dead and thousands wounded and missing and yet the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has not taken any tangible steps to stop the brutal daily slaughter by the Syrian regime against its own people who rose up against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his military junta. The UNSC managed to pass two resolutions that called for the implementation of a proposed peace plan by UN-Arab League emissary Kofi Annan, and the deployment of 300 international observers to monitor a cease-fire agreed on by the Syrian regime and the opposition forces. However, the Syrian regime is yet to adhere to the cease-fire and the terms of Annan's peace plan. Syrian regular troops are still deployed in the cities and villages and bombarding rebel strongholds and opening fire on unarmed demonstrators unabated by the presence of international observers. Most analysts and observers do not expect the Syrian regime to respect the cease-fire or implement Annan's plan, especially with the continued open support it has been receiving from Russia and its strategic ally, Iran.

The United States and its Western allies have made it clear that they do not intend to intervene militarily to stop the killing in Syria, at least not without a UNSC resolution, which is hard to get due to an anticipated Russian veto. The West also ignored calls by the Arab states, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for arming the rebels and creating a safe-zone in northern Syria to allow the opposition forces to organize their ranks in their quest to depose the regime. Many observers and officials have called for repeating the Yugoslavia intervention scenario in Syria.

The main reasons for the West's reservations as explained in speeches, press interviews and statements by regional diplomats, could be summed up as follows:

• The West fears that military operations in highly populated areas in Syria could cause heavy collateral damage that could cause a huge public outcry in the Arab world against the West.

• Arming the Syrian rebels could lead to chaos and spread of armed militias in the country, as was the case in Libya after the collapse of the regime. Israel and its lobby in the West have been pressing hard to prevent the arming of Syrian opposition to avoid the spread of Islamist militias on its borders, especially in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

• The collapse of the Syrian regime could open the way to the Muslim Brotherhood to take over power in Damascus, which could place Israel in a sensitive position as it is still trying to cope with the change on its southern borders where the Muslim Brotherhood have taken control of the political process in Egypt.

• Supporting the rebels militarily could push the situation in Syrian into a civil war between the minority Alawaite Muslim sect that controls the regime and the Sunni Muslim majority that backs the uprising.

• The Syrian regime could use its ballistic missiles or some of its chemical weapons against NATO or Arab countries. There is also a concern that non-conventional weapons could fall in the hands of terrorist groups.

Backing from Arab Masses

An international military intervention will speed up the inevitable collapse of the regime and will encourage hesitant Syrian generals and officials to defect.

Taking the above reasons one at a time shows that the West will likely fall victim to its own over-cautious and slow approach to the Syrian crisis. The worry of negative reaction to a possible collateral damage incident shows that the West has thus far failed to do an adequate post-conflict assessment of the NATO operations in Libya where warplanes from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participated in the air raids on Libyan regime forces. The Arab media was overwhelmingly behind the NATO campaign, and major media outlets like the Doha-based al-Jazeera and Dubai-based and Saudi-owned al-Arabiya news channels clearly played down incidents of collateral damage in Libya and justified NATO's use of force throughout the campaign. Lesson learned here is that when Arab forces are involved in a military operation demanded by Arab masses and governments, public opinion will stand behind the military campaign all the way despite some inevitable incidents of collateral damage.

Defected Syrian troops make up the majority of the armed Syrian rebels, and intensive efforts have been underway for some time by Syrian opposition leaders and Arab as well as Western officials to organize the ranks of the Syrian opposition fighters. Once equipped with adequate means of communication and linked up in proper command and control centers it would be easy to identify the fighters and their areas of deployment. This should help keep the rebels organized in a clear structure of command that would keep them all under control and prevent their feared disintegration into militias in the post-regime era. However, leaving the rebels to fend for themselves and seek their own arms and means of fighting the regime would eventually lead to the creation of self-sustaining local militias throughout Syria, including the Golan Heights. This scenario would be the perfect one for al-Qaeda to penetrate the Syrian opposition ranks and take control of some areas on the ground.

The continued delay in the intervention in Syria has only prolonged the suffering of the Syrian people and raised the level of public frustration amongst the masses that have become less dependent on the international community and more hopeful of a divine intervention to save them. Thus, Syrians are being driven into extremism, which will only widen the popular base of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist movements in the country. Secular and liberal Syrian activists who support the revolution, and have been playing a leading role in running it are quickly losing their popular base as a result of the international community's slackness. The Muslim Brotherhood popular base in Syria was controlled due to clampdown by the regime for many years. But now it is hard to tell how the situation has become with the flow of events in the country. So once again the sloppy and slow approach by the international community could lead to empowering the Islamic parties in Syria.

Syria-West Messages

The West has been very reluctant to give any tangible support to the Syrian people who have been left alone to face the ferocity of the regime's heavily armed forces.

As for the fear of a civil war in Syria, the level of atrocities by the regime there and its refusal to halt the military campaign will eventually push the country into civil war. Armed gangs and thugs set loose by the regime have been massacring families in various cities and towns, which is fueling sectarian killings. This is a method employed by the regime to blackmail the international community and Arab countries into staying out of its affairs. But it is a policy with a double-edged sword because it will lead to civil war. An international military intervention will speed up the inevitable collapse of the regime and will encourage hesitant Syrian generals and officials to defect, permitting a quick end to the Assad rule.

The Syrian regime realizes very well that using ballistic missiles or chemical weapons against NATO, Israel or Arab countries will mean its certain death. Right now the regime is betting on exhausting the international community and stripping it out of options to keep it from intervening militarily with the help of Russia and force the West into allowing it to stay in power as part of a new understanding with the opposition. The worst case scenario for the regime would be for it to escape to exile. Using such weapons against the West and its allies will mean suicide to a regime that sets survival as its top priority. Also, delay of an international intervention would open the way for extremist groups to raid chemical weapons depots after the collapse of the regime.

Even if the West intends to intervene at a certain point but is waiting for the right moment, its communication and information strategy has thus far been counter-productive and destructive to say the least. The NATO Secretary General has repeatedly come up to assure the Syrian regime that there will not be any intervention, which is seen by Syrians and Arabs as a Western message of assurance to Assad to continue with his oppression. Statements by US generals and officials accusing the Syrian rebels of being infested with al-Qaeda is also another message read by the Syrian rebels as a Western show of support for the regime's oppression. Washington and NATO should do an immediate full revision of their communication and information strategy towards Syria — if there is a strategy to start with. The devastating impact the fall of the Syrian regime would have on Iran has already been established by many officials and analysts; it is seen with the level of direct military, economic and political support Iran has been given to the Syrian regime. Yet, the West has been very reluctant to give any tangible support to the Syrian people who have been left alone to face the ferocity of the regime's heavily armed forces.

The will of the Syrian rebels have been too strong to be broken by the regime's forces, and hence if the situation is left as is the Syrian crisis will slide into a prolonged civil war that will lead to the slow death of the regime and the birth of a destroyed country led by radical Islamic parties with strong resentment to the international community for abandoning it to its own fate. Then, Israel will have a real cause of concern. The UNSC should regard the failure by the regime to implement the Annan peace plan as a violation of its resolution and should call for the activation of chapter seven to allow for a military intervention to protect the Syrian people. If Russia vetoes the resolution, then a military coalition including Arab and NATO countries should intervene as was the case in Yugoslavia to bring about a swift and controlled end to the state of chaos Syria is about to plunge in as a result of the regime's unabated brutality.

This story originally appeared on INEGMA's website and is hereby republished with permission.

Riad Kahwaji is the founder and Chief Executive Office of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA). Kahwaji worked as the Middle East Bureau Chief for Defense News, a leading international defense publication based in Virginia, USA from 2001 to 2008. He also worked for Jane´s Defense Weekly as Middle East Correspondent from 1999 to 2001.

http://www.onislam.net/english/politics/transnational/457496-syria-pros-and-cons-of-intervention.html

Kempen Kebangsaan bagi Palestin: ahli PBB ke194’

Utusan Malaysia memetik laporan AP/Reuters yang menyebut Palestin pada 8 September 2011 secara rasminya melancarkan kempen mereka dengan tujuan untuk menyertai Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) sebagai negara anggota ke-194 badan dunia itu.
Kita mendoakan supaya perjuangan murni mereka di berkati Allah dan mencapai kejayaan sepenuhnya. Kita mengharapkan pengalaman silam masyarakat Arab tidak berulang demi memertabatkan keadilan manusia sejagat. Janganlah pula kepentingan sendiri dipertaruhkan sehingga maruah bangsa dan ugama dijual mudah. 
Kita tidak mudah lupa bagaimana telah kesekian lama nasib negara dan bangsa Palestin di perggadaikan oleh kuasa-kuasa besar dan asing dengan "persetujuan" saudara sebangsa Arab sejiran.
Bermula dengan Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916, tanah Palestine telah di potong dan dibelah bahagikan sehingga menjadi sebagaimana ianya sekarang. Amat menyedihkan sekiranya ada pula dikalangan puak Palestine sendiri yang berjaya dibelahbahagikan dan diadudombakan oleh musuh dengan tujuan memecahbelahkan kesatuan mereka. Kita tidak mahu terjadi nanti Palestine sendiri yang memecahbelahkan dan menjual negara mereka sendiri, sebagaimana yang telah terjadi di Iraq, Libya dan negara-negara lain di dunia yang fana ini. 
Kalau kita berpegang kepada ketaqwaan kepada Allah, kita akan selamat.
Pun begitu kita akan memantau perkembangan permohonan Palestine ini dengan rapi dan mendoakan kejayaan mereka. 
Beberapa keratan rencana berkaitan asas permohonan keahliam PBB ini saya muatkan sebagai rujukan seperti berikut:-

Palestine Declaration of Independence

PLO Negotiations Office

Recognizing the Palestinian State on the 1967 border &

Admission of Palestine as a Full Member of the United Nations

JULY 2011

Palestine Declaration of Independence

November 15th, 1988

Quotes from the Palestine Declaration of Independence

“Whereas the Palestinian people reaffirms most definitively its inalienable rights in the land of its patrimony: Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the authority bestowedby international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947; And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory”.

“The State of Palestine herewith declares that it believes in the settlement of regional and international disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with the U.N. Charter and resolutions. With prejudice to its natural right to defend its territorial integrity and independence, it therefore rejects the threat or use

of force, violence and terrorism against its territorial integrity or political independence, as it also rejects their use against territorial integrity of other states”.

Why recognize Palestine?

• The establishment of a Palestinian state was a promise made to the Palestinian

people by the international community whose fulfillment that is long-overdue

The right of the Palestinian people to an independent, sovereign state has awaited implementation for sixty-four years. It is a debt owed by the international community to the Palestinian People that is long-overdue. When the British government sought to terminate its mandate in Palestine, the international community, through the United Nations (UN), recommended a solution to the conflict between immigrant Jewish communities and the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. That solution contained in General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), called for the creation of two states. Today, however, it is only one state, the State of Israel, that exists and is a full member of the UN. The Palestinians, who have suffered decades of displacement, dispossessions, and the systematic denial of their national and human rights, have yet to realize their independent state. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the establishment of the State of Palestine over the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). By limiting our national aspirations to 22% of the Palestinian people’s historic homeland, the PLO made a historic compromise in the interest of peace. Palestinian concessions over land have been painful but they have been honored. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the international community has repeatedly affirmed that the only formula for peace in the region is the two-state solution, which requires the establishment of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. More recently in 2009, the international community endorsed the Palestinian state-building plan, which concludes in September 2011 and later recognized that Palestinians are indeed ready for statehood.

Now it is time for Israel and the international community to honor commitments made to us by recognizing the State of Palestine on the remaining 22% of our patrimony and admitting Palestine to the UN as a full member.

• Recognition of the State of Palestine affirms previous important UN resolutions

The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has been universally recognized by the

UN. This includes UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 3236, which stated that the right of independence of Palestine is “inalienable” and that the Palestinian people have a right to a

“sovereign and independent” state. UNGA Resolution 2649 also confirmed the right of the people of Palestine to self-determination while UNGA Resolution 2672 declared that respecting

Palestinians’ inalienable rights is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Moreover, the International Court of Justice, in its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the Wall of Separation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, recognized that Israel’s policy of  Wall construction and settlement expansion inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is illegal as it “severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.”

• Recognition of the State of Palestine is consistent with the understanding that

formed the basis of the Interim Agreement

Recognizing the Palestinian State is consistent with the very basis of the Declaration of Principles, including the principle of the two-state solution and relevant UN resolutions like 242 and 338.

Regrettably, almost 20 years have passed since the signing of the first Interim Agreement and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and exploitation of natural resources is further entrenched. In fact, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the number of Israeli settlers living in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, more than doubled. In the past twenty years Palestinians have seen more of their homes and properties demolished and razed than ever before. They have also seen their economy shrink because of a regime of closure and checkpoints in the West Bank and an inhumane siege in Gaza.

Throughout the past years, Palestinians have honored their commitments while Israel systematically violated its obligations by undertaking unilateral actions that violate all signed agreements. We are well beyond the interim period and Palestinian national institutions under the umbrella of the interim Palestinian National Authority are now ready to serve the State of Palestine.

• Recognizing the State of Palestine is a sovereign decision that supports international

law

To recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 border is a sovereign decision of each state; it is a nonviolent action that supports the enforcement of international law. Recognition of the State of Palestine and support for its admission to the UN makes clear that that Israel has no valid claim to any parts of the territory it occupied in 1967 and reaffirms that Israel’s colonization of Palestinian land is illegal. Recognition of the Palestinian state also reaffirms the international community’s commitment to the two-state solution. It is an investment in peace.

• Recognizing the State of Palestine is not a substitute for negotiations

Recognition of the State of Palestine is not a substitute for negotiations. Rather, it strengthens the possibility of reaching a just and lasting peace based on the terms of reference accepted by the international community as the basis for resolving the conflict. It affirms respect for UN Security Council Resolution 242, which did not recognize Israel’s acquisition of Palestinian land beyond the 1967 border by force. It is also consistent with the Arab Peace Initiative, which promised recognition of Israel and normalized relations between Israel and the Arab World upon ending the occupation of Arab territories that began in 1967 and reaching an agreed upon solution to the issue of the right of return.. By recognizing Palestine, the international community would be formalizing these terms of reference and protecting the two-state solution.

Palestine remains committed to negotiations as we believe that ending the conflict still requires the parties to reach a negotiated comprehensive peace agreement on all outstanding issues, including refugees, security, water, and other.

• Recognizing the State of Palestine protects the viability of the two-state solution

from continued unilateral Israeli actions

Opponents of our efforts to obtain recognition and to join the UN as a full member argue that

recognizing the State of Palestine violates Article XXXI, para. 7 of the Oslo Interim Agreement

which provides that “parties agree not to initiate or take any step that will change the status quo of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” In fact, it is Israel, the occupying power, that has sought to change both the de jure and de facto status of  the occupied territory through its illegal colonization of Palestinian land, and the implantation of its settlers, a population which has increased from 236,000 in 1993 to over 500,000 today. Other examples of Israel’s attempts to change the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory include its illegal annexation of occupied East Jerusalem and the No Man’s Land, construction of the Wall in the West Bank, its isolation of the Gaza Strip, and its closure of the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea. The international community considers all these actions to be illegal and does not recognize them. Recently, European diplomats concluded in a study that these unilateral Israeli actions, especially in occupied East Jerusalem, threaten the two-state solution. Also, the World Bank and UN have also concluded that the continued Israeli occupation is the only remaining obstacle for Palestinian statehood.

• The realization of the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination is an

international responsibility

The right to self determination of the Palestinian people is an inalienable right that is not up for negotiations. . It is a jus cogens norm that must be respected by states and it has been recognized as an erga omnes right, which makes the realization of this right the responsibility of the international community. The Palestinian people must be provided the opportunity to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" as provided by Common Article 1 of the international covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social Rights. Likewise, UN member states have overwhelmingly and repeatedly recognized that Palestinians enjoy the human rights outlined by relevant Covenants and Declarations, which make up the body of International Human Rights Law.

• The State of Palestine is ready to join the community of nations as a full member to

the United Nations.

The State of Palestine has met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, which is the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states. The permanent population of our land is the Palestinian people; its right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized by the UN and by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border, though it is occupied by Israel. We have the capacity to enter into relations with other states and have embassies and missions in more than 100 countries. And the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Union have indicated that our institutions are developed to the level where we are now prepared for statehood. The State of Palestine also intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. In UNGA Resolution 181 II- the resolution that provided the legal basis for Israel’s admission to the UN - the General Assembly instructed that “sympathetic consideration” be given to our application for membership in the UN. Thus, international recognition of the State of Palestine and its admission to the UN as a full member is consistent with and supports a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. that was envisioned by the international community since 1947.

Source:  www.nad-plo.org

 

Palestinians, America and the U.N.

Palestinians are well within their rights to bring the issue of Israeli settlements and their illegality before the United Nations Security Council. Our decision to do so follows both Israel’s refusal to cease all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territory, and America’s failure to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law and existing agreements. The United States should support such a move, not block it. It is universally recognized that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and that without a full cessation of all settlement activity, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and the two-state solution are both doomed. In spite of the dilution of American public statements, the United States still recognizes settlements as illegal. Not only are they a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention; under the Rome Statute, they are considered a war crime. With America unwilling to hold Israel accountable to international law and existing agreements, Israel has remained intransigent in the face of international efforts to revive genuine negotiations. A Security Council resolution would reaffirm today’s international consensus in support of the two-state solution by recognizing the threat posed by illegal settlements. This is not rocket science. Settlements are built on occupied Palestinian land. They also entail the exploitation of Palestine’s natural resources, including water. Both belong to a future Palestinian state. Without them, no Palestinian state can be viable. The true impact of Israeli settlements is measured not only by the way they undermine the two-state solution; it is also the enormous damage they inflict on countless Palestinian communities. Settlements superimpose a colonial grid over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. They constitute an illegal exercise of Israeli extraterritoriality in Palestine. Built on the expropriation and theft of Palestinian land, they dominate the surrounding hilltops of the occupied West Bank, encircling and besieging Palestinian towns and villages below. They stand at the heart of an ever expanding web of checkpoints, walls, roadblocks and settler-only bypass roads that marginalize Palestinian realities and render all normal life impossible. Palestinian farms, businesses and homes have all been destroyed to make way for settlement expansion, while Palestinian lives and livelihoods have been shattered in the process. The rights and protections enshrined under international law apply as much to Palestinians as to anyone else. Indeed, at the very heart of the Palestinian struggle is a determination to win back these very rights and protections long denied us by Israel. This applies as much to the rights of Palestinian refugees living in exile for the last 60 years, as it does to the many Palestinians who have suffered for over four decades under the brutality of an Israeli military occupation. Settlements are a fundamental part of this. Given that they continue to expand in flagrant violation of international law, it is perfectly reasonable for Palestinians to turn to the United Nations as a forum in which to pursue their legitimate rights. The question is not whether or not Palestinians should approach the United Nations. We have every right to pursue all legal avenues available to us, whether in the absence of or parallel to negotiations, just as the African National Congress did in its struggle to overthrow apartheid in South Africa. Rather, the question is why the United States should oppose such a move, particularly given that its own attempts to revive Palestinian-Israeli negotiations have been thwarted time and again by Israel’s refusal to stop building settlements. Negotiations are not a substitute for international law. Rather, they should be guided by international law, which alone establishes the benchmarks for a just peace. Nor are settlements a bilateral issue whose illegality is up for discussion. It is just such a message that the Obama administration is in danger of sending by opposing a Security Council resolution reaffirming the illegality of Israeli settlements. It sets up a false opposition between negotiations and international law, substituting one for the other. And it closes down what few avenues are open to Palestinians, in the absence of negotiations, to continue our national struggle through nonviolent means. The U.N. charter explicitly references its “faith in fundamental human rights” and the need to uphold “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law” be respected. What could be more applicable than the damage done by Israeli violations, in particular unilateral measures like settlement activity? Hanan Ashrawi is a former Palestinian peace negotiator and an elected member of both the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee and the Palestinian Legislative Council.

http://www.nad-plo.org/etemplate.php?id=8