Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

China: The Evil Twin?

This article is Part 2 of Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes.  Part 1 can be found here.

This article is also available in Arabic (العربية) at Free Syrian Translators

As Russia equips the world’s authoritarian regimes with the means to discourage Western intervention, China is selling them one of the worst tools of oppression against their own people: artillery.

(Artillery, as defined by the FAS report, includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and recoiless rifles and FROG launchers 100mm and over)

Artillery sold by China (2003-2010): 1,890

Artillery sold by the US (2003-2010): 390

Why artillery?  Assad’s shelling of Syrian cities like Homs shows how essential artillery is to waging an effective campaign against a popular uprising.

Map showing artillery damage after Assad's army bombed Homs Syria
Map showing artillery damage after Assad’s army bombed Homs, Syria

In Syria, the use of artillery by Bashar al-Assad has accomplished numerous goals:

  1. Artillery has allowed Assad to avoid the mistake that Muammar Gaddafi made – using airpower to bombard the opposition – which led to calls for a no-fly zone and eventually Western military intervention to remove the regime.
  2. Artillery bombardment allows the regime to kill not only freedom fighters but also civilians, reducing the pool of potential recruits and dramatically increasing the war weariness of the population.
  3. The large-scale destruction of towns and cities serves as a warning to the civilian population not to support the uprising, and discourages rebels from holding ground in cities because of the destruction the regime response will cause.
  4. Using artillery provides the regime with some plausible deniability of intent when civilian buildings are hit (such as hospitals or media centers) because it is indirect fire.
  5. Artillery allows the regime to bombard the enemy from a distance, keeping the army together so as to prevent individual units from defecting to the other side.

These Chinese artillery purchases are in addition to all of the Russian artillery already purchased by the regimes in the past and doesn’t even include the smaller mortars (60mm and 80mm).  Syria and other authoritarian regimes have acquired a truly massive stockpile of artillery rounds for leveling cities and destroying any uprising against their rule.

China has been particularly aggressive with artillery sales to Africa.  Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt (under Hosni Mubarak) have purchased the 155mm howitzers from China.  China shipped mortars and rockets to President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe despite international pressure in 2008.

When the regimes don’t have enough cash to pay for the weapons China negotiates trade deals for the natural resources of the countries, allowing the regimes to further pillage the country and the resources of its people in exchange for the arms to remain in power.  This is part of the reason that China deals with pariah states under sanction by other countries; in their weakened state the regimes are forced to enter into resource deals on terms very benficial to China in exchange for weapons.  This allows China to expand influence in the Third World and obtain resources it depends on for economic growth.

Protecting Their Investment

The Russian and Chinese arms trade with authoritarian regimes isn’t just about money and resources.  Russia and China view themselves as superpowers intent on spreading their influence throughout the world.  Chinese weapons are viewed as cheap substitutes for Russian arms and as a consequence they’re the budget alternative for many authoritarian regimes.  With China’s focus on economic power as their means of influence in the world this presents an opportunity for them to ship cheap weapons to the Third World in exchange for favorable trade terms, natural resources, and establishing a foothold in developing countries.

Mali, Sudan, and Ethnic Conflict in Northern Africa

Mali, Sudan, and Ethnic Conflict in Northern Africa

(also available in French here)

Africa, for all its beauty and rich history, has always been a complex and often harsh continent.  Hundreds of ethnic groups, some of which have hostilities that date back millennia, live in largely impoverished conditions in a forced co-existence dictated by colonial-era national borders.

map of ethnic groups in Africa

Ethnic groups in Africa

One of the clearest examples of ethnic and racial tension in Africa is the conflict between Arabs (and the Tuareg, who are Berbers) and sub-Saharan (black) Africans.  For over 1,000 years Arabs enslaved black Africans; estimates of the victims of the Arab slave trade range up to 18 million.  Although the Arab slave trade began to rapidly decline in the 1960s Mauritania did not criminalize slavery until 2007 and even today tens of thousands of Africans remain enslaved through bonded labor or other forms of slavery in the region (it is estimated that 8% of Nigeriens and 10-20% of Mauritanians are slaves).  Beyond this predatory relationship, interaction between Arabs/Tuaregs and black Africans was somewhat limited by the vast expanse of the Sahara desert which acted as a natural buffer zone.

That began to change in the 1800s during the “Scramble for Africa” when European powers colonized and carved the continent into what became (for the most part) the modern national borders.  Arabs, Tuareg and black Africans were lumped together in a band of French and British territory stretching straight across the southern expanse of the Sahara that later became the current states of Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan.

map of the European colonies in Africa

How the European Colonialists Created the Borders of Africa

In the past decade four of these countries (Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad) have experienced rebellions or civil wars fought predominantly along ethnic or racial divisions.  This is not to suggest that ethnicity and race are necessarily the root cause of these conflicts and that the racial conflict was inevitable, but the role of ethnicity and race cannot be dismissed either.  The ethnic and racial animosity that exists is very real and apparent to anyone who has spent time in the region.  These wars occurred for a multitude of standard reasons – politics, resources, religion, history – but it was often quite clear that ethnicity and race were determining factors when the locals chose which side to fight for.

The latest Tuareg rebellion in Mali claimed the desert north of the Niger River as the independent state of Azawad in 2012, separating the Tuaregs from the black Africans in southern Mali.  The previous Tuareg rebellion (2007-2009) occurred in both Mali and Niger with the Nigerien Tuaregs demanding decentralization and that the Nigerien military in their territory be dominated by Tuaregs instead of black Africans.  Sudan fought two civil wars between the Arab-dominated north and the black African south, the most recent from 1983-2005 which resulted in autonomy and later the independence of South Sudan in 2011.  The Sudanese Civil War spilled over into Chad from 2005-2010 as mostly a proxy war between Sudan and South Sudan utilizing the same ethnic militias from the Sudanese Civil War.

Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad should never have existed in their current form and the redrawing of borders in Mali and Sudan is long overdue.  There may unfortunately never be any widespread reconciliation between Arabs/Tuaregs and black Africans given the history of slavery, racism, discrimination and competition for resources in combination with literacy rates that are among the lowest in the world (a substantial obstacle to education programs designed to foster racial harmony).  Black Africans have been continually victimized by their Arab and Tuareg neighbors in Northern Africa for over a millennium, resulting in a hatred and fear that is deeply engrained.  Religious (generally Muslim vs Christian and animist) and cultural differences further exacerbate the situation.

Sudan and South Sudan are now on the brink of war after less than a year of separation, feuding over border demarcation and oil revenues.  Both sides are using proxy rebel forces and Sudan has conducted air strikes against targets in South Sudan.  If history is any indication, the violence will slowly but surely spill over into Chad as rebel groups conduct cross-border raids.  It is also likely that Uganda will intervene militarily and fight alongside South Sudan if necessary.  This would escalate the conflict into looking very much like a disturbing, regional race war.

In Mali the Tuareg rebellion is far from over.  As the Tuareg celebrate their declaration of the newly independent state of Azawad counter-revolutionary forces are assembling into militias of their own and revenge is at the top of their agenda.  One of my sources has told me on good authority that at least some of the militias are debating whether killing off the Tuareg fighters will be enough or if they should also execute the Tuareg women and children to prevent yet another Tuareg rebellion in the future.  The rest of the war won’t be fought by the Malian army and the Tuaregs, but by disparate militias that will rack up a list of human rights abuses that will dwarf those that occurred during the Libyan civil war.

What is coming will shock the world.

The only way to prevent these horrific outcomes in Mali and South Sudan is aggressive diplomatic intervention by the international community to force a settlement of hostilities.  Such negotiations must result in a legitimate separation that allows for self-determination by both sides.  In Mali this would mean allowing either the independence of Azawad or legitimate, federal autonomy.  The current conflict between Sudan and South Sudan is fairly straightforward (it’s about oil) and can be negotiated; however, the only long-term solution is for South Sudan to construct another pipeline that will free it from dependence on Sudan.  The mutual reliance designed to prevent conflict – South Sudan has the oil but Sudan has the pipeline to transport it – will only cause future conflict.  When China finally chooses a side (it supplies Sudan with weapons yet imports oil from South Sudan) and agrees to construct a pipeline in South Sudan that allows for the export of oil through Kenya, a permanent peace will become possible.  Reconciliation between the Arab north and the black African south is not possible after two civil wars that left over 2 million dead.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the Mali and Sudan wars will continue to escalate.  President al-Bashir of Sudan has vowed to fight the South Sudan “insects” who “do not understand anything but the language of the gun and ammunition” and Mali’s President Traore is threatening “a total and relentless war” against the Tuareg.  The only potentially positive outcome is that these wars will be so devastating to all involved that they result in the Arab/Tuareg and black African conflict being finally settled when, desperate to prevent this from recurring, both sides genuinely separate and wage their conflict purely on political and diplomatic fronts, from a distance.  This is the only solution that will fully respect the principle of self-determination and the only permanent one given the amount of bloodshed over the years.

The question is whether Niger and Chad, trapped in the middle of these two wars and having their own history of ethnic and racial conflict, will escape the turmoil unscathed.  If history is any indication, they won’t.

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

Today has proven that the United Nations is powerless to stop the Syrian civil war.

Kofi Annan says he’s “shocked” by the surge in violence and atrocities leading up to the April 10th deadline for Syrian regime forces to cease military operations. Journalists are writing stories that should have been written last week and saved in a folder for publication today – the outcome of this fiasco was that predictable.

The only thing “shocking” about the latest failure of the United Nations is that anybody is shocked by it.  The United Nations is a deeply flawed organization unable to accomplish its stated purposes, much less meet the needs and expectations of the multitudes of oppressed and suffering around the world who look to it in desperation as their last and only hope.

The Purpose of the United Nations

The United Nations charter lists four purposes of the organization (I have paraphrased them for brevity) in Chapter 1, Article 1.  Unfortunately, some of these purposes are mutually exclusive:

  1. Maintain international peace and security. The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the primary purpose of preventing a third world war, and to this day peace and security remains the paramount concern of the UN.  Everything else is a secondary consideration.
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. With this second purpose the scheme begins to unravel – a large number of UN member countries do not represent the self-determination of their population, nor does the UN make any substantial effort to demand self-determination among its members.  Only 78 of the 165 UN nations that are included in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index are democracies, and 52 of the 165 members are authoritarian regimes (the remainder are hybrid systems of government). This creates a situation where a UN vote by the United States represents the interests (through democratic elections) of its 312 million people.  Syria, by contrast, represents the interests of one man – Bashar al-Assad, not the 20 million people of Syria.  The “friendly relations among nations” are based on respect for the self-determination of a single person in 1/3 of the member nations, not on the self-determination of peoples.  In other words, of the nearly 7 billion people represented by the United Nations, the 3.39 billion of them who live in democratic or flawed democratic countries have their interests represented in the UN, while 2.6 billion people suffer the will of 52 despots and their supporters who use UN membership for their own interests.
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The UN seeks international cooperation to achieve these goals and has a mixed record of success doing so.  The reason is obvious – when 1/3 of the member states are authoritarian regimes with little respect for human rights or fundamental freedoms, how much cooperation can there possibly be on these issues?
  4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Kumbaya.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index

2011 Democracy Index - The United Nations (Dark green countries are the most democratic, dark red countries are the most authoritarian)

The UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is where the power lies with regards to conflicts like Libya and Syria and it is arguably the most malignant cancer infecting the United Nations.  The Security Council consists of five permanent members with veto power: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.  The latter two countries are the problem.

How did Russia and China find themselves on the Security Council?  The council members were the countries that won WWII.  This meant the Republic of China and the Soviet Union, not the People’s Republic of China and Russia.  The Republic of China was a democratic country exiled to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War in 1949, and the communist victors of the war took over the seat at the Security Council in 1971.  Russia inherited its seat on the Security Council after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

For the past 65 years Russia and China have been a force of oppression by acting as the primary backers of authoritarian regimes around the world.  Wherever you find a dictator killing his own people you’ll find him using Russian weapons to do it.  I was on the receiving end of Russian bullets, rockets, and mortars while fighting in the Libyan civil war.  China boosts authoritarian state economies with foreign investment (and supplies them with weapons as well.)  Both Russia and China also protect authoritarian regimes through obstructionism on the UN Security Council.  In recent years they have successfully shielded Iran, North Korea and now, Syria.

A Security Council with a Communist, authoritarian China and a deeply flawed, quasi-democratic Russia whose foreign policy is focused on supporting authoritarian regimes around the world as permanent members with veto power makes the UN charter’s stated purpose #2 (self-determination) and #3 (human rights and freedom) impossible to achieve.

The United Nations has become like a Superhero who consults the villains before deciding whether to save the city.

Reforming the United Nations

If the United Nations wishes to remain relevant in a 21st century world as an organization that can achieve the goals stated in its own charter, it is imperative that one of two things happen.

  1. The UN charter is re-written to remove provisions #2 (equal rights and self-determination) and #3 (promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms).  Both of these purposes are impossible to achieve with Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council, so the existence of these two stated purposes makes the UN doomed to perpetual failure as an organization.
  2. Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council is revoked

The second option is clearly preferable.  Many arguments can be made to support revoking Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council, but three of them stand out as most prescient:

  1. There is no provision for succession in the UN charter, so the legality of Russia inheriting the seat of the Soviet Union is in question.
  2. The Soviet Union was given permanent status as a world superpower.  Russia represents not only a fraction of the former Soviet Union territory and people, but is far from a superpower – it is an aspiring world power (at best).
  3. Russia has a pattern of obstructionism through the Security Council that endangers world peace and security, thus undermining the very purpose of the Security Council.  Furthermore, Russia’s support of authoritarian regimes makes fulfillment of UN purposes #2 and #3 impossible.

The case for revoking the People’s Republic of China’s membership as a permanent member of the Security Council is more complicated.  The People’s Republic of China did succeed the Republic of China as a UN member following their conquest of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, but United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971 put an end to any effective legal argument against China’s status on the Security Council.  Furthermore, China is inarguably a world superpower.

However, China has never vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on its own; China so far has only vetoed when Russia does.  Removing Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council would at least encourage China to abstain on some Security Council resolutions it disagrees with rather than be a lone veto.

Unfortunately, the chance of Russia losing its permanent member status is about the same as Assad surrendering himself to the International Criminal Court.  The only possible reform of the Security Council is expanding the permanent membership to include additional countries (democratic ones), a proposal that has been gaining support in recent years.  This would dilute the perceived legitimacy of vetoes by Russia or China by having more countries opposed to such vetoes.

The Way Forward

Failing to enact necessary reforms that begin with changes in the Security Council, the United Nations will continue to be largely irrelevant beyond its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security, for which it has a mixed but acceptable record of success.  For this purpose the UN should be supported.

After today’s deadline on Syria nobody should remain under the delusion that the United Nations can advance freedom, self-determination, or human rights.  If anything, the fact that the primary mission of the UN is stability and peace means that it will often be diametrically opposed to the cause of freedom around the world since in many cases, Syria included, freedom and self-determination can only be achieved through war.  Peace and freedom are often mutually exclusive concepts and throughout history it has often been revolutions and civil wars that paved the way to freedom and liberty.

Stability means preserving the status quo, and for 1/3 of the world’s population the status quo means living under authoritarianism.

Was Kofi Annan really “shocked” that Assad’s regime intensified military action as the deadline for a ceasefire drew near?  Did Annan really believe that he would achieve anything other than helping Assad by delivering a public relations victory and providing the regime with some diplomatic cover as it escalated violence against the Syrian people?  Was he just leading the United Nations through the motions of diplomacy, having the UN act to save face so the diplomats could say they tried something?  Or is Annan suffering from delusions of grandeur so profound that he really believed he could successfully negotiate the beginning of the end of civil war in Syria and pave the way for the voluntary departure of Assad and a transition to democracy?

Did Kofi Annan, with all his experience and past success, really believe that the Syrian regime, which tortures children, summarily executes its own citizens, and has mocked the international community for decades, could be an honest and reliable partner in negotiations?  Could he not predict that the regime would ruthlessly press their advance against the opposition in the days leading up to April 10, taking a deadline as a greenlight for action in advance of it?  Is Annan (and the UN at large) so incapable of empathizing with both the Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army that he believed the two sides would negotiate after a year of revolution that has claimed 10,000 lives and left both sides in an all-or-nothing, irreversible position?

But it really doesn’t matter what Annan and the UN was thinking – the end result is very clear.  The Syrian civil war will continue, Assad will remain in power, and nothing short of a military victory by the Free Syrian Army is likely to remove him and bring peace and security, and most importantly freedom and self-determination, to Syria.

It is also clear that Russia and China will continue to protect Assad as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The UN has only one opportunity left to play a role in Syria – persuade Russia that Assad cannot be reasoned with and must be removed from power.  It is possible that Kofi Annan knew that Syria would fail to honor the April 10 deadline all along, which would allow him to show Russia that their preferred strategy would not work with Assad and that other measures were needed. The problem with giving Annan and the UN the benefit of the doubt in this case is that Russia should have been able to exert more influence on Assad if they really felt that their ability to support him was in jeopardy, and because it is highly unlikely that Russia will ever back down on Syria; the Russians believe Assad’s rule can survive and they have already invested considerable political capital supporting him.

The United Nations has its uses.  The chance of world war is virtually non-existent, partly due to the existence of the UN.  Occasionally positive agreements are reached and the UN has managed to extinguish some conflicts before they spiraled out of control.  But the UN should never be expected to fulfill any mission of advancing freedom, human rights, or self-determination – it can rarely do so effectively with 1/3 of its members being authoritarian regimes and 2/5 of the Security Council willing to protect many of those regimes using their veto power.

The United Nations is focused on peace, stability, and diplomacy.  There is no role for any of this in Syria.  Any organization that has peace and security as its primary mission is an obstruction to the cause of freedom in Syria, and any actions by the UN other than military intervention will only serve to strengthen Assad and prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.  For every action like today’s expired deadline, the UN will only soil its hands with more Syrian blood by prolonging the war and strengthening Assad’s grip on power.

The time has come for the nations of the free world to act unilaterally in the cause of freedom and human rights in Syria. Let the United Nations be where the democratic countries meet with the 52 authoritarian ones to discuss matters of peace and security. But have NATO do what it can to eliminate as many of those 52 as possible when the opportunities present themselves, as in Syria now.

At the very least, it is time to provide the Free Syrian Army with what is required to win the war. The Gulf Cooperation Council should send arms, Turkey should help establish a buffer zone in Syria, and the West should continue to provide equipment and intel to hasten the fall of the regime.

When the UN is comprised of democratic countries that actually do represent the principles of freedom and self-determination, then we can focus on achieving world peace.

The Syria Game

The Syria Game

The leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recently called on Al-Qaeda fighters to join the revolution in Syria and help overthrow Bashar al-Assad.  That the United States and al-Qaeda find themselves on the same side in Syria highlights the complexity of the conflict.

Syria is about more than just Syria.  Its geographic location, ethnic and religious divisions, ties to Iran and Hezbollah, influence in Lebanon, relationships with Russia and China, vast chemical weapons program, conflict with Israel, and pivotal role in the Arab Spring movement has made it the center of a geopolitical struggle that extends far beyond Syria’s borders.

The Syrian Civil War is well on its way to becoming a proxy war, much like the Lebanese Civil War of the 1970s and 80s.  It is also part of a larger strategic rivalry between East and West, much like The Great Game between the British and Russian Empires in Central Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The players in this new Great Game in Syria have chosen their sides and have enough at stake that they’ll do almost anything to win.

Team Assad

Map of the most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria

The most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad

Russia and China

Russia is engaged in a desperate bid for survival and relevancy in a rapidly changing world.  It has declined from a world superpower to a flawed, corrupt, quasi-democratic, largely dysfunctional shadow of its former self that is desperately grasping at spheres of influence that are steadily shrinking away.  Most of these spheres of influence are in the Arab world, Asia, and Africa, where the Russians maintain significant economic and military interests.  In Syria, these include billions of dollars in defense contracts and Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base (at the Syrian port of Tartus.)

China is a rising power with similar economic and military interests in Syria.  More importantly, both Russia and China realize that the Arab Spring is just the beginning of a wave of revolutions likely to spread across the globe, and that eventually the Arab Spring will morph into a Russian and Chinese Spring that will land at their doorsteps.  They will do whatever they can, from obstructing the United Nations to advising, arming, and supporting authoritarian regimes, in order to slow the advance of democracy around the world.

Iran

Iran and Syria have an extremely close relationship that has endured for over 30 years.  They are both ruled by Shia Muslims, are opponents of Israel, and provide funding and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran will do everything in its power to prevent the fall of the Assad regime because it would eliminate their strongest Arab ally, choke off Hezbollah, deny them territory from which to launch attacks against Israel, and drastically reduce Iranian influence in the Arab Middle East.  Iran also fears that once Syria falls, Iran will be among the next countries to experience a popular uprising that threatens their own regime.

Iraq

Iraq, run by a Shia-dominated government that maintains a close relationship with Iran, has supported Assad throughout the uprising.  Iraq fears that a civil war punctuated by sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni could spill over the border and reignite more serious problems in Iraq.  There is no doubt that close ties with Iran also guide their support of the Assad regime.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah receives support from Syria, and funding and weapons from Iran.  The removal of Assad would be devastating to them, and if it paved the way for regime change in Iran as well, the organization would be unlikely to survive.

Lebanon

Hezbollah’s political alliance, “March 8,” has been the ruling coalition in Lebanon since 2011.  Although the rival “March 14” Alliance and the majority of Lebanon’s population support the uprising against Assad, Hezbollah will use their political power to keep Lebanon in Assad’s corner, or at least on the sidelines.

Team Free Syrian Army

Map of the most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The West

The United States and Europe are driven by a belief in democracy and human rights.  Although they have turned a blind eye to many protest movements in the past and considered regional stability their main priority (as evidenced by the tepid response to Egypt’s uprising against Mubarak), public outcry driven by social media has combined with a realization that the Arab Spring is unstoppable and that their political, economic, and strategic interests are best served by allying with the winning side (the revolutionaries) who will form the governments of the future.

The United States and Europe also want to remove Assad because it would severely weaken Iran strategically and politically.  Regime change in Syria, combined with economic sanctions, the covert war currently being waged against Iran, and the likelihood that Iranian nuclear facilities will be bombed within the next year, could help incite an Iranian Spring and the downfall of the regime.

The West’s enthusiasm for the revolution in Syria is nevertheless tempered by concerns that a militarized, post-Assad Syria could result in a failed state that would be disastrous for regional security, especially for the security of Israel.  The fact that Syria has one of the largest chemical weapons programs in the world and the likelihood that some of these weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists after the war ends dramatically exacerbates those concerns.

Al-Qaeda

Assad’s regime is among several secular governments in the Middle East that have long been on al-Qaeda’s target list.  They are especially motivated to fight since Assad and his regime are Alawite Shia Muslims, considered heretics by al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda views Syria as an opportunity to join the right side of a popular revolution, and by doing so gain popularity and new recruits, weapons, and influence.  The overthrow of Assad is also central to their belief system, as the Islamic faith mandates helping oppressed Muslims.

Turkey

Turkey has no interest in a protracted, years-long civil war on its border.  But the calculations that led them to provide sanctuary to the Free Syrian Army run much deeper.  Turkey has had a contentious relationship with Syria and Iran over their neighbors’ sponsorship of Kurdish PKK insurgents who are fighting Turkey’s government.  Turkey now sees an opportunity to cut off the PKK’s funding and supply lines by removing Assad from power.  They have gone all-in on the Syrian uprising, as an Assad victory would be a significant boost to the PKK, and result in a contentious relationship that could impact regional trade for years.

The GCC

The Gulf Cooperation Council, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar as its most vocal critics of Assad, is siding with the Syrian protestors because the majority of them are Sunni, and because they want good relations with the new government after Assad falls.  They also want to weaken Iran.  While it may seem hypocritical for the authoritarian regimes of the GCC to be supporting popular uprisings, they have calculated that it is better to be seen as supportive of the Arab Spring, thereby diminishing calls for reform in their own countries.

The Game Has Begun…

All of these players in the Syrian game make the debate about foreign intervention rather meaningless.  Foreign intervention is already taking place.  The United Nations has been rendered useless by Russian and Chinese obstructionism, and the game is now being played through covert action, supplying weapons to the rebels, and diplomatic maneuvering.  The players of this game intend to win at almost any cost.  Although the outcome of the Syrian Civil War appears to favor the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, the amount of time it takes and the number of lives that are lost will be largely dependent on who plays the game the best.

The Lebanese Civil War should serve as a cautionary tale for foreign intervention in Syria.  That proxy war lasted 15 years with over 1 million killed or wounded.  The similar demographics and sectarian divisions in Syria virtually ensure a repeat scenario if the international community plays the game the same way in Lebanon.

The countries that support a free Syria must intervene in an unambiguous, direct way that signals a full commitment to the removal of Assad.  The Syrian rebels must consolidate under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.  Once they have done this, they must be well-equipped with all of the weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and supplies needed to defeat Assad as quickly as possible.

Foreign intervention in Libya helped us win the war far more quickly and with fewer casualties than would have been possible on our own.  The NATO campaign was not only strategically important, but it signaled an international commitment to the removal of Gaddafi that led to far more Libyans joining the rebel ranks.  Once this happened, we were unstoppable.

The international community has the ability, and the obligation, to ensure that the outcome of the Syrian Civil War looks like Libya, not Lebanon.

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf Syria

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf, Syria