I wonder whether that may be too optimistic?
The reports from Syria are certainly alarming. Refugees flooding across the Turkish border. And the citizens of the rebellious town of Jisr al-Shugour, bracing themselves for a full-scale assault by the army.
I think the idea that the Syrian army could not simply kill thousands of their fellow citizens was based on two assumptions – or, perhaps, hopes. First, that in the internet age, it would be impossible to carry out bloody repression on this scale, without immediately provoking a paralysing international outcry. Second, that the development of the international doctrine of a “responsibility to protect” brutalised civilians – even within the boundaries of a sovereign state – would make Assad junior stay his hand.
But, in fact, the Syrian control of international coverage of the unrest inside their country has been remarkably effective. A few smuggled out photos taken on mobile phones and some hasty phone interviews, on crackly lines, simply do not provide the depth of coverage and therefore the international pressure, generated by the hundreds of foreign reporters and cameras in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. So much, for all that guff about the irresistible power of Facebook and Twitter. Television cameras and foreign reporters on the ground still matter more.
As for the “responsibility to protect” – the Libyan intervention is the most dramatic example of the doctrine in action, yet recorded. But the problems and controversy surrounding Libya, have actually demonstrated how hard it will be to replicate. Even at the time of the Libyan resolution, it was pretty clear that the West was unlikely to have the stomach or the manpower to stage a similar operation in Syria.
The fact that China, Russia, South Africa and others feel that the UK, France and the US have gone well beyond the mandate to “protect civilians” in Libya – and are now clearly engaged in attempted regime change - is also making it much harder to get a new resolution on Syria approved.
So, all in all, I fear that the idea that the Syrian government will not be able to get away with mass murder may prove too optimistic. In the long run, I suspect a really savage crackdown will seal the fate of the Assad regime. But, in the short run, I think they could well get away with it. Let’s hope that, even now, they pull back.
The reports from Syria are certainly alarming. Refugees flooding across the Turkish border. And the citizens of the rebellious town of Jisr al-Shugour, bracing themselves for a full-scale assault by the army.
I think the idea that the Syrian army could not simply kill thousands of their fellow citizens was based on two assumptions – or, perhaps, hopes. First, that in the internet age, it would be impossible to carry out bloody repression on this scale, without immediately provoking a paralysing international outcry. Second, that the development of the international doctrine of a “responsibility to protect” brutalised civilians – even within the boundaries of a sovereign state – would make Assad junior stay his hand.
But, in fact, the Syrian control of international coverage of the unrest inside their country has been remarkably effective. A few smuggled out photos taken on mobile phones and some hasty phone interviews, on crackly lines, simply do not provide the depth of coverage and therefore the international pressure, generated by the hundreds of foreign reporters and cameras in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. So much, for all that guff about the irresistible power of Facebook and Twitter. Television cameras and foreign reporters on the ground still matter more.
As for the “responsibility to protect” – the Libyan intervention is the most dramatic example of the doctrine in action, yet recorded. But the problems and controversy surrounding Libya, have actually demonstrated how hard it will be to replicate. Even at the time of the Libyan resolution, it was pretty clear that the West was unlikely to have the stomach or the manpower to stage a similar operation in Syria.
The fact that China, Russia, South Africa and others feel that the UK, France and the US have gone well beyond the mandate to “protect civilians” in Libya – and are now clearly engaged in attempted regime change - is also making it much harder to get a new resolution on Syria approved.
So, all in all, I fear that the idea that the Syrian government will not be able to get away with mass murder may prove too optimistic. In the long run, I suspect a really savage crackdown will seal the fate of the Assad regime. But, in the short run, I think they could well get away with it. Let’s hope that, even now, they pull back.
No comments:
Post a Comment