Giving the right approach to the events of the civil war in Syria,in an article published today in the
Spiegel online,says that the truth is that this conflict is not like the Afghanistan or the Iraq wars. These conflicts stand for Western hubris, for the insolubility of some religious and ethnic conflicts, for the danger of a "slippery slope," in which even a minor, short-term military engagement may end up lasting for years.
But the reality is that the Syrian conflict looks like more to the 1990's conflict in the Balkans. What did this conflict taught us, is "that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to consider the limited use of military means in order to force a diplomatic solution and thus peace".
The events in Syria look more like the Bosnia conflict than of Afghanistan and Iraq.
A first similarity of the Syrian with the Balkans conflict is the inability to get both parties together around a negotiation table to get a political solution to the civil war.
"Syria's president Bashar al-Assad sees no obligation at present to negotiate seriously. As long as he is convinced that his situation could continue to improve over the course of the conflict, or that he could even resolve the war in his favor, he will continue the fight. The international community needs to change this calculation if it wants to reach a political solution".
"The Syrian opposition is now trying to counteract the material supremacy of the Assad regime, which is being supplied by Moscow and Tehran and massively supported by Hezbollah. It is only a slight exaggeration to observe that the only ones who have hardly received any support at all are the moderates within the Syrian opposition. That these forces would wither is to be expected and herein lies the real tragedy of Western failure".
Besides,only an American-Russian entente can lead to successful diplomacy as part of a necessary contact group.
In Syria, we have unfortunately probably passed the point at which an intervention may have been justified, useful, and possible with reasonable means. And, as sad as it is, the general public in the West almost seems to have become accustomed to reports of massacres in Syria.
"The risk of a regional "conflagration," of which German opponents of intervention have frequently warned, has long since become reality, without a doubt also because of our inaction. We are looking at a disintegrating country with chemical weapons in the heart of the world's most unstable region. Syria has become a rallying place for jihadists from around the world".
"One of the great achievements of international politics and international law after the genocides of the 20th century was precisely the idea that the international community could not just ignore its responsibility, and should even take military action in extreme cases of mass atrocities. A number of years ago, the UN General Assembly endorsed this new principle, which limits national sovereignty as traditionally understood, as the "responsibility to protect" (R2P). Without a doubt, this signified progress in terms of the modern Western understanding of human rights and international law".
Looking at Syrian conflict without intervention "would be a step backward for the capacity of the international community to secure peace through the United Nations. For the West, it would be more than that. It would be a declaration of bankruptcy, both moral and political".
Wolfgang Ischinger
Spiegel Online
