Hope for Syria, at any level, seems to diminish very fast, with every passing day. I have restrained myself for a long time from writing about the on-going Humanitarian crisis in Syria but I cannot help it any more; not because there is an endless flow of negative news in the media almost daily, but because I am appalled by the despicable behaviour of our world leaders. I, like many other people, had hope that ‘things’ would get better sooner than later – not the opposite; ‘things’ getting worse sooner than later. Our hopes have been crushed severally and continue to be trampled upon day after day by world leaders of the so called international community. I hoped that the horrific memories of mass murder and the shuttering Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, the effects of the war in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and recently the massive Human Rights violations in Libya- which motivated the international community to call into force, for the very first time since it was adopted by the UN, the Responsibility to Protect, would cause the UN and other international bodies to respond faster and more appropriately in Syria. Sadly, we are yet to learn or maybe we have just forgotten, as time has gone by and some of the scars have begun to heal.

President Assad,since the beginning of the crisis and revolt against his regime, has continually been involved in the process of buying more time from the international community in order to commit more murders and other Human Rights violations against the citizens of Syria. We have all unfortunately witnessed as the situation has got out of control with thousands upon thousands having been killed within a period of one year and two months. From suppressing a political revolt in the country through violence, Mr. Assad has managed to bring the country to the point of a civil war, all incredibly in the full glare of the international community.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council in 2006, clearly states that it is the primary responsibility of a state to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and their incitement. In the event that a certain state fails to raise up to achieve its primary responsibility, it is the duty of the international community to assist the said state in doing so, in order to protect the populations of that state. Prior to the R2P, states maintained that because they were  independent and sovereign, they had ultimate dominion over what happened within their state borders, including the welfare of their citizens and how they they treated their citizens, and for a long time that remained so because if a state wanted to have its sovereignty respected, it had to show respect to other states’ sovereignty by refraining itself from getting involved in the states’ internal matters.

Consider the war situation in Libya which involved various Human Rights violations and resulted in a number of deaths   as Gadaffi mercilessly held onto power and denied Libyans a fair democratic system. Within a period of less than one year, the United Nations responded and rightly so, ending the plight of Libyans and saving them from the evil plans of Gadaffi and his forces. There are various speculations which have been offered for these actions and I do not aim, in this article, to add or discuss any of them but I would like to point out that some of the reasons cannot be completely dismissed as mere speculations when we compare the situation in Syria today and that in Libya last year.

The international community is fast loosing its credibility and its relevance might be at stake in terms of its responsibility of maintaining  international order and peace. Straight away, when comparing both situations (Libya and Syria), we note that the UN has been inconsistent in carrying out its principles. It has clearly been discriminate. There were no calls of non-intervention in Libya on the grounds of Libya ‘is an independent and sovereignty state, so you cannot interfere with its internal matters’ Instead, the UN security Council danced to a different tune: ‘It does not matter whether Libya is an independent state, the R2P points out that it has in fact, as a state, lost its sovereignty because it has engaged in massive Human Rights violations against its populations and failed to fulfil its primary responsibility. Therefore, we can indeed use force to end the atrocities and spare the lives of Libyans and uphold their Human Rights.’

What then, is the difference between Syrians and Libyans? Is the difference in the land on which they rest and walk? The geographical location of their land? Why are some populations more equal than others, more deserving of their Human Rights than others? I dare to ask: had the events, which we witness today in Syria, been  unfolding in Europe,would we witness the same reluctance and lack of political will from the international community as we are now? In the early 1990s, we witnessed a horrendous act of genocide in Rwanda, a small East African country which by then was poorly developed.  The international community did as little as it possibly could to stop the murders and in late 1990s, violence erupted in the Balkans, a part of Europe which at that time could not pride itself as economically independent and developed. This time, the international community did all it could, all that was within its power and with-out its powers to stop the violence and save the face of Europe. Without the express authority of the United Nations Security Council, the forces of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) used force to end the conflict in Kosovo. These events took place well over a decade ago, but to many others, the events are fresh in our minds, the terror experienced by victims and the loss suffered by survivors remains.

We might argue that the above events that I have described happened a long time ago and that there were lessons which were taken from that but there is no evidence for that. Any lessons that have been learnt in relevance to international Humanitarian intervention have long been forgotten and any hope of digging up some of the lessons to reapply them in the contemporary is futile. We exist in a realistic world system and  states are out to attain their national interests, anything beyond that – Human Rights of other citizens included, which do not add to the overall goal of attaining national interests is irrelevant and must be avoided in order to save resources for more worthwhile activities. The United Nations Security Council is unfortunately divided on how to deal with Syria’s case because each state is far too interested in attaining its goal of amassing maximum national gains.

Human Rights is for all human beings existing on the universe by virtue of being human. If this were true, Libyans, Rwandans, Liberians, Kosovars, and Syrians are rightly entitled to all Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Many believe we are all equal but we have to prove we believe in what we say and mean it. The United Nations has mandated itself with the role of maintaining international peace and order. Right now, with violence engulfing Syria, that mandate is not being fulfilled, Syrians have been neglected by the international community and Human Rights have failed to prevail over national interests. I hope the twain shall meet sooner than later.

It’s impossible to watch the events unfold in Syria and more recently in Homs city without hearing the echo of the promises spelled out after the Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter, Bosnia) and Rwanda massacres. The Srebrenica massacre  in Bosnia took place as the international community looked on, as well as the Rwandan genocide in which 800,000 Tustis and moderate Hutus were killed within a period of only 100 days. Following the events, the international community vowed never to allow a repeat of such events. Indeed, they  tried to put their words into action when  NATO intervened in Kosovo to end Milosevic‘s ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.

Today we are forced to ask ourselves, in the midst of the on-going diplomatic wrangles concerning the situation in Syria, two very important questions. One, whether indeed the international community learnt any lessons from the bloody events in Bosnia and Rwanda. Second, what will it take to stop the massacre in Syria and restore the dignity of the people of Syria?

The killings in Srebrenica were as a result of violent aggression by Serb nationalists led by Slobodan Milosevic who aimed at expanding the Serbian territory to include Serbs who were living in Bosnia. Troops were deployed in Bosnia during the crisis but were not allowed to use force to defend the Bosnian Muslims, who were the primary target of Milosevic’s violent campaign. The troops watched helplessly as young Muslim men were massacred by the Serb nationalists. In the case of Rwanda, a country too small and too poor at the time, the violence did not intrigue the interest of the West. A small UN force led by Lt. Gen Romeo Dallaire was however, dispached on a UN mission as a show to the world that the international community was doing  ‘something’ about the conflict. The force was too small in number and had limited resources to make any substantial impact to end the bloodbath and they too, watched as thousands of Rwandans were massacred.

Ensuing the events that I have described, were promises by the international community that it would never again sit back and watch as humanity suffered as it did then. Despite the UN expanding the mandate for peace keeping forces to use force in order to maintain peace, today it does not amount to much especially if there is still no consensus on their deployment. The United Nations Security Council had been looked upon by the Kosovars in 1999, as Milosevic waged an ethnic cleansing campaign against them, but failed to deliver as the permanent members were divided on how to respond to the crisis. NATO intervened as a matter of saving its credibility; using air power and no ground forces to defeat Milosevic.

The events in Syria today grimly remind us of an international community which once watched as humanity suffered day in, day out until no more blood could be spilled. The massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda left an indelible dark mark on modern history and as more violence ravages the cities of Syria, it is becoming clear that Syrians have been abandoned and little was learnt from the violent conflicts in Bosnia and Rwanda. The international community still has a long way to go in order to be entrusted fully to carry out the responsibility to protect citizens terrorized by their own governments. How much more blood needs to be spilled however, painfully remains in their hands.

This week has been declared the worst in the on-going Syrian revolution. It has been the bloodiest since the revolution began as the Syrian regime has terrorized its people in a way never envisioned. Following the withdrawal of the Arab league and the matter being referred to the United Nations Security Council by the League, the regime in Syria has blatantly interpreted the events as a right to forcefully quieten the revolt. The city of Homs, which was one of the cities in Syria to first hold Anti-Assad protests and the hiding place for army defectors, reported deaths of up to 55 on Saturday alone as the regime tried to reclaim the area from army defectors.

The United Nations Security Council on Saturday also saw the resolution against Syria defeated as Russia and China vetoed it.  What this means is that the Security Council is incapable of directly intervening in Syria to end the on-going carnage. On the other hand, for Mr. Assad, this means that he can do whatever he pleases and sees fit to bring ‘order’ to Syria. Russia is a strong ally of Syria and this move did not come as a surprise and was actually expected as Russia had in the previous week publicly warned that it would not support the resolution in its present state which required especially, that Mr. Assad steps down. Beijing for its part, maintains that the situation in Syria is not a matter of international security – the core business of the UNSC- but an internal matter of the state of Syria and therefore has no place in the UNSC agenda.

The question then arises as to whether the time has come for Syrians to give up on what they have been fighting for, for about one year now: the fall of an oppressive regime and a democratic country. It has undoubtedly been a very hard and dangerous road for Syrians. Hitherto, 5400 lives have been lost and more continue to be claimed as the regime works day and night to rid the country of  anti-government campaigners, who they now call terrorists.  The Arabs seem defeated on how to deal with the situation and the United Nations Security Council is constrained by its  very own internal systems to make a significant decision that will save the Syrians’ dream.

The Arab Spring, which inspired the Syrian revolution, is based on people coming together and speaking up against oppressive regimes . It is important to understand that the Arab spring has had varied effects in different countries. In Tunisia, where it has its origin, it led to the fall of the regime and paved the road for democracy. In Egypt, it had a similar effect whereby Mr. Hosni was also forced to leave office and the country is now on the road towards democracy albeit with significant challenges. It is the case of Libya that is similar to that of Syria although the results cannot be compared at the moment. In Libya as in Syria, there was significant support for Muamar Gaddafi by the army forces and this was invaluable to the regime in resisting and combating the revolution. Possibly so that had there been no intervention by the UN and NATO forces, Gaddafi would have succeeded in suppressing the revolution in Libya. Clear national interests of Western countries were at play in the case of Libya and it did not take too long for the international community to come up with a solution that would ensure their control of oil reserves in Libya.

The regime in Syria is aware of the complicity that exists in the violation of Human Rights, by the international community hence it will do all it can to see an end to the Syrian revolution while it still has a chance to. With Russia especially supporting the regime, we cannot rule out the possibility of the Syrian revolution coming to a stand still or to an actual end. The US, Britain and France have expressed great disappointment and anger about the situation but we are yet to get signals that point to a tangible solution to end the massacre taking place in Syria and fulfil the hopes of the people of Syria.

The continuing conflict in Syria took an unexpected turn of events late last week after the Arab League decided to suspend its monitoring mission in Syria. The Arab League, citing continued violence and deterioration of the overall situation in Syria, urged the United Nations Security Council to intervene to bring an end to the on-going carnage. The United Nations Security Council has however, failed to provide a quick and resolute answer to the conflict which many fear will soon develop into a full blown civil conflict.

Talks held by the United Nations Security Council yesterday (01-02-2012) ended in deadlock as Russia and China failed to support the resolution against Syria. The resolution, among other things, calls on President Assad to step down and this essentially means a change in the Syrian regime.  Both Russia and China have publicly expressed resistance towards the resolution and are expected to veto it. Russia, a great ally of Syria, has emphasized that its policy does not support regime change. China, on the other hand, continues to view the events taking place in Syria as internal matters of a state which the Security Council should not interfere with. China argues that the uprising in Syria is not a matter that threatens international security. The interference by United Nation Security Council in the situation will be tantamount to violation of Syria’s sovereignty and right to self determination which will be in violation of the United Nations Charter and the basic norms guiding the practice of international relations.

In spite of mounting regional and international pressure, President Assad has not been motivated to stop Human Rights violations in Syria and his government remains solidly behind him. Since the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission, President Assad has tightened his resolve to curtail the  Syria Uprising. There are reports of increased violence in many parts of the country as the Government army reclaims regions where the army defectors hold. According to the BBC, The Local Co-Ordination Committee (LCC) said that on Tuesday, 37 people had been killed-including two children and five soldiers who had defected from the army.

With the UNSC talks having reached an impasse, President Assad is likely to use this opportunity to do all he can,which he has demonstrated as violence towards Syrians, to stop the Uprising. As I had pointed out in an earlier article, The Arab League Abandons Syria, President Assad is likely to remain unchanged by the international events such as the talks by the UNSC. For as long as Russia and China do not support the resolution, Mr. Assad has a free reign on shaping the future of Syria as he wills. The UNSC talks will be used as a way of buying more time and the current impasse is, but a huge opportunity for Mr. Assad to carry out more violence against his people if that is what is going to take to end the Uprising.

As violence continues, there is fear of a civil conflict as ‘things’ could easily get out of hand. President Assad’s family, which belongs to the Alawite sect – an offshoot of Shia Islam,  has been in power for 40 years. Although Mr. Assad has opened up the economy, he has maintained a tight leash on the freedom of expression; jailing critics and controlling the media. The Country’s 20 million population is mainly Sunni. So far the biggest protests are said to have been taking place in Sunni -majority areas and if the prevailing situation is not taken control of, it could easily read as a preamble to a civil conflict in Syria.

The heat engulfing Syria has eventually proved too much for the Arab league to withstand. The league yesterday,  announced it’s decision to suspend it’s monitoring mission in Syria. In a statement released by the Secretary General, the Arab League cites the deterioration of the situation in Syria and the continued use of violence as the reason behind the abrupt decision.

This comes as a relief to activists and Human Rights groups who have for a long time not only heavily criticised the Arab  League as a toothless dog, but also accused President Assad as using it to buy time to carry out more violence against Syrians in an effort to end the uprising against his rule. Violence in Syria continues to surge in many cities and it was especially noted that during the Arab League visits to Syria, the violence took place at an even larger scale.

Syria has expressed disappointment and remorse at the sudden decision but this does not come as a surprise at all. President Assad had been using the Arab League mission as a cover for violence in Syria. The presence of the Arab League deflected attention from the government sponsored attacks on its population towards the work that the League was carrying out. It’s important to consider the effect of the Arab League’s decision.  We have all been asking what fate has in store for Syria.  This question reverberates even more now as it seems that the people of Syria have been abandoned without notice by their very own people. Their case and fate will be resolved and decided upon by strangers; foreigners, at least for now.

The Arab League’s decision will most definitely  have an effect on how Syria’s ruling government will behave in the coming days.  Without the cover of the Arab League, all eyes will be on President Assad’s next move.There is now increased pressure on his government on how it will deal with the revolt. Will there be a reduction in violence? Will the strategy change to a more peaceful one? Or will the situation remain as it is?

Despite the mounting pressure, it is unlikely that we will witness a reduction in violence but what is likely to change is the strategy used to contain the situation. All eyes are now looking up to the international community as we await the decision on the resolution against Syria  from the United Nations Security Council next week. The situation unfortunately does look somewhat bleak for Syria in terms of an international intervention as hitherto, Russia and China are expected to veto the resolution. Russia this week, publicly announced that it would veto the resolution while China had previously vetoed a draft resolution against Syria late last year.