The situation in Syria has gone from bad to worse with President Basher al Assad prepared to use any amount of force to crush the protests against his regime. The bombardment by security forces of Hama, a town that has been at the centre of the protests, left at least 80 people dead on the first day of Ramzan. An estimated 1,600 people have been killed so far in the protests that first erupted in March, inspired by the ‘Arab spring' in the region. The regime is unrepentant. President Assad prefers to see a foreign conspiracy to “tear Syria into small statelets that compete to satisfy those who worked to slice them up.” If this is true, the regime, which plays the sectarian card to its own advantage, must take the blame for strengthening the hands of the purported conspirators. The genesis of Syria's pro-democracy movement lies in Assad family rule and the concentration of powers in the minority Alawite sect to which it belongs. Unsurprisingly, the majority Sunni form the bulk of the protesters, though by no means all. The sectarian divide does raise concerns of a civil war should there be a power vacuum in Damascus. Thus far, the regime's efforts at offering limited political reform have cut little ice with protesters. Last week, President Assad announced a new law permitting the formation of political parties, aside from the ruling Ba'ath party, to no apparent effect. The two main cities of Damascus and Aleppo have still not seen any protest but most other parts of the country are in ferment.
How far should the world go in influencing the course of events in Syria? Military intervention by outside powers to force President Assad to leave office will be disastrous and must be strongly opposed. Aside from the double-standards involved, (why not Bahrain, then?), the brutal NATO bombing campaign has actually led to the strengthening of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Moreover, the Syrian regime's ties with Lebanon and Iran and its shared border with Turkey give the problem a wider dimension. After protracted discussion, the U.N. Security Council has issued a statement condemning the Syrian government for using force against civilians and the violations of human rights. Russia, India, and Brazil have taken some flak for blocking a resolution and watering down the statement by calling on “all sides” to act with restraint. But the UNSC call for an “inclusive” Syrian-led process to address the political aspirations of the Syrian people was the right one. While sending an unequivocal message to the Assad regime that the world does not approve of its actions, it has the advantage of keeping a door open for diplomatic negotiations to help resolve the crisis.
