Why the Kremlin
Opposes Assad’s Immediate Ouster (Izvestia, Russia)
“When the Russian
side objects to Western demands for Assad’s immediate withdrawal, it isn’t
because Russia is fixated on his remaining in power. … During the Syrian crisis, the Russian side has attempted to appeal to its Western partners to learn the lessons of the 'Arab Spring' in other countries. Chancellor Bismarck said, “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.' Alas, when it comes to the Syrian situation, our American partners refuse to learn - even from their own mistakes.”
At a recent seminar in Washington D.C. (organized by New
York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation and Washington D.C.-based
Center for the National Interest), which coincided with the G20 Summit in Los Cabos and the meeting of presidents Putin and Obama, I once
again heard my American colleagues from think tanks and parts of the power
structure voice the position of the West and especially United States on the
events in Syria, and offer wide variety of interpretations and explanations of Russia’s
position on the issue.
The first thing to note is that in Western political and
diplomatic circles and among the Western public, there are several myths about
what’s happening in Syria.
The first myth stems from the fact that due to the one-sided
perspective on events in Syria presented by Western mass media, which encourages
a belief in the general public and some politicians and diplomats that the whole
of Syrian society has risen up against Bashar
al-Assad and is demanding his resignation. In fact Assad, as has been confirmed
by parliamentary elections on May 7, has the support of a considerable portion
of the country’s population. Moreover, he has the support of ethnic and
religious minorities and relies on the power of the sizable and by Middle East
standards - a well-equipped military.
The second myth, widespread in expert and political circles,
is that Assad is completely dependent on Russia and China (mostly on Russia),
and that if Moscow so desires, it can demand Assad’s resignation and he will
have to comply. But as stated above, Assad has his own base of support. His
dependence on Russia is not critical - at least not at this stage. Tremendous
political and economic interests of many influential groups in Syrian society
are at stake, and even if he wanted to, Assad couldn’t just pick up and leave
his post because of Moscow’s demands.
During the aforementioned seminar, some American
participants came to a consensus that Russia, using its influence and
connections to Syrian Army commanders, should instigate a military coup. This, they
anticipated, would resolve a problem that has become a stumbling block between Russia
and Western countries, and particularly the United States. Moreover, one of the
participants, a high-ranking official in U.S. law enforcement, said that such
actions had already been suggested by the U.S. administration to Russian authorities.
Obviously, the people making such suggestions don’t understand
that, first, relations between Moscow and Damascus are not like those between
Washington and Cairo, where at the request of the U.S. military and Pentagon, Egyptian
generals carried out a de-facto revolution and removed Mubarak from power. Since
the Camp David agreements, Egyptian generals have received billions of dollars
in annual cash infusions from Washington, and so are extremely receptive to its
desires.
Second, there are no mass protests against Assad capable of paralyzing
political life in Damascus, and no split within military circles. And thirdly, which
is very important here: Russia doesn’t base its position in regard to events in
one country or another, becoming fixated on any one leader of a particular
country; in other words, Russia does not personify the problem.
Those factors aside, during the Syrian crisis, the Russian
side has attempted to appeal to its Western partners to learn the lessons of
the “Arab Spring” in other countries. Chancellor
Bismarck said, “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man
learns from the mistakes of others.” Alas, when it comes to the Syrian
situation, our American partners refuse to learn - even from their own
mistakes. When in early 2011, anti-government protests first broke out in Egypt
(which culminated in the overthrow of the Mubarak regime) I wrote
a piece in the magazine The National Interest saying that ultimately,
if Mubarak is forced out, it wouldn’t mean that the people of Google and
Microsoft would come to power with the likes of liberals like Mohammad El Baradei. More than likely, I wrote, such revolutionary
processes would lead to one of two outcomes: military dictatorship or the seizure
of power by Islamic radicals. Just last Sunday, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi
claimed victory in Egypt’s presidential election.
Thus, when the Russian side objects to Western demands for Assad’s
immediate withdrawal, it isn’t because Russia is fixated on Assad remaining in
power. It is just that the Russian side is trying to maintain some semblance of
order over these processes to prevent the spread of violence, chaos, and anarchy.
Syria is the most sensitive spot in the Middle East - so sensitive in fact, that
the events taking place there could easily spill out into Lebanon, Iraq, and
may even spark a conflict involving Iran, Turkey, and/or Israel. So it is a powder
keg, and one must take extreme care so as not to add fuel to the fire. And of
course, it is extremely important that the process take place within the
constitutional framework. And if a change in government does take place in one
form or another, it is important that it not become a zero-sum game.
Finally, we come to the most important factor, and one that
I sought to draw to the attention of American attendees at the seminar: Oddly
enough, it isn’t Russia, but namely the U.S. and its allies who by their
actions are provoking increased violence, chaos, and anarchy in the region.
Taking an unequivocal stance that can be reduced to a demand that Assad must go,
they are therefore raising the expectations and demands of the armed
opposition. The latter, recalling the Libya experience, makes radical demands with
respect to the current regime. This gives it no incentive to enter negotiations
and seek a compromise with the current regime. It demands outside intervention from
its Western backers and their allies in the region and the overthrow of the Assad
regime by force. Thus, the West, by not offering a political or diplomatic
solution to the problem, and by not offering an alternative to the Russia-backed
plan of Kofi Annan, is further escalating the conflict.
Posted
by Worldmeets.US
Some cause for optimism is that after their meeting in Los Cabos, presidents Putin and Obama issued
a joint statement that both parties support the efforts of Kofi Annan and are
willing to allow the problem to be addressed by Syrians themselves in peace talks
involving all the parties. Time will tell whether the tenets of this statement can
be implemented within the framework of an international conference on Syria, as
proposed by Russian diplomacy.
*AndranikMigranyan
is director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation.
