Opinion | Columnists

Diplomacy still the best option in Syria

Rather than pursuing uncertain and dangerous military solutions, Obama should use his influence to continue to press for a negotiated settlement

  • By David Cortright
  • Published: 20:00 June 12, 2013
  • Gulf News

As onlookers gaze in horror at the civil war raging in Syria, many naturally feel a compulsion to do something to relieve the people’s sufferings. Many have called for arming the Syrian rebels — a move President Barack Obama is now reportedly considering as Bashar Al Assad’s forces are apparently poised to attack the key city of Homs. However, such a step will worsen the devastation and may involve the US in yet another Middle East war. A better way to help the Syrian people will be to pursue diplomatic efforts to end the killing and provide greater support for humanitarian relief efforts.

Giving military aid to the rebels will only add fuel to the fire, prolonging the war, producing more death and destruction and increasing the risk of sectarian conflagration in the region. The rebel cause is just — to overthrow the murderous Al Assad regime — but the hard reality is that after two years of fighting, insurgent forces have been unable to defeat government troops and lately have lost ground militarily, most recently with the fall of the city of Qusayr in central Homs province. Al Assad’s Army remains strong, despite some defections, and has been bolstered by aid from Iran and Hezbollah and promised missile shipments from Russia.

Sending weapons and military aid may help the rebels, but they are already receiving assistance from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. US support will not solve the problem of rebel disunity and the lack of effective command. Many of the fighting groups are more loyal to local militia leaders than to the Free Syrian Army. In some localities, warlords hold sway and refuse to submit to external authority.

Providing weapons to the rebels also means giving military support to insurgent forces that include elements allied to Al Qaida. We are assured that US aid will go only to moderate groups, but controlling the use of weapons is impossible in the midst of the large-scale bitter war raging in Syria. Islamist groups such as Jabhat Al Nusra increasingly dominate the insurgency and will likely gain control of any weapons that America sends. US military aid can end up arming Al Qaida.

What if American arms assistance were to somehow help the rebels turn the tide in their favour? More Hezbollah troops will probably enter the fray on the side of the Al Assad government and their paymasters in Tehran may also intervene more directly. This will escalate and expand the conflict. The Sunni majority Syrian rebels will face a Shiite-backed (read Hezbollah and Iran) Al Assad regime, intensifying a regional Shiite-Sunni divide that is already tearing apart Lebanon and Iraq. This conflict will sunder the entire region and further devastate Syria.

With US involvement growing and escalation likely, pressure will build for stronger action. A no-fly zone? Drone strikes against Syrian tanks and artillery? Boots on the ground? The US may find itself dragged into another even more dangerous Middle East war.

Rather than pursuing uncertain and dangerous military solutions, the US should use its influence to continue to press for a diplomatic settlement. US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov announced recently in Moscow the convening of a conference in Geneva to end the fighting and begin negotiations for a transitional government. UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi welcomed last week’s communique as “the first hopeful news concerning that unhappy country in a very long time”.

The Syrian government has said it will attend the conference, but the militarily weakened rebels are balking and say they will not participate without weapons and ammunition from the West. The Obama administration is using the prospect of military assistance for the rebels as a leverage to gain Russian and Syrian government support for the talks and as an inducement for the rebels to participate.

It is a delicate balancing act that will require Kerry to pressure the Syrian government into allowing an open transition process and the rebels into pursuing their goals through political and diplomatic means rather than armed struggle.

Syria’s most urgent need is for humanitarian assistance. Last Friday, the UN issued the largest humanitarian appeal in its history, requesting more than $5 billion (Dh18.39 billion) this year to care for the more than 1.6 million refugees who have fled the country, with 200,000 more leaving every month and for the millions more displaced within Syria. Emergency help is needed for food, medical assistance, sanitation, shelter and schooling for children. The World Health Organisation expressed concern last week about possible outbreaks of several preventable diseases.

The Obama administration deserves credit for launching a diplomatic process to try to end the war in Syria. The administration should also pledge greater American support for providing desperately-needed humanitarian assistance for the war’s civilian victims. Sending aid rather than weapons and continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution offer the best options for helping the Syrian people.

— Christian Science Monitor

David Cortright is the director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

Gulf News
Quick Links

  1. Business

  2. Sport

  3. The latest Entertainment news

  4. The latest Lifestyle stories

  5. Blogs

  6. Opinion

In Opinion

  1. Meet Our Writers

  2. Columnists

  3. Editorials

  4. Off the Cuff

  5. Your say

  6. Speak Your Mind

Latest Columns

  1. Ranking of service organisations

  2. Fighting the forces of darkness in Iraq

  3. Beware the lone wolves at the door

  4. The silence of emerging powers

  5. Enemies of the state promote extremism

  6. Outsourcing motherhood