Blog
Show me the guarantee: Why Assad will not back down, and why the realists still win the argument
Should the Syrian troop’s assault on opposition holdouts in the city of Homs, and currently the Deraa province in the run up to the observation of a “cease-fire” be a surprise to world leaders as they contemplate on how to bring an end to the human carnage in Syria? If holding on to political power [political survival] is a priority on a leader’s mind, then amazement and worries need not be expressed at Assad’s behavior regarding (soon-to-be dishonor) the current Kofi Annan’s six-point plan to initiate an attempt to resolve the Syrian conflict. As we analyze Assad’s behaviors regarding whether or not the six-point plan mean anything to him as to attract his honoring of the plan, we need to ascertain whether the plan has embedded guarantees that secures the continuation of Assad’s regime in particular, and the Assad dynasty in general. There is no doubt that Annan’s six-point plan is purely based on humanitarian grounds with no guarantees for the survival of the Assad regime. It should also be noted that Western powers such as the United States, have declared the Assad regime dead through statements such “the regime has lost the confidence and mandate of its people.” The only reason why the Assad regime is still standing today is because of the power balance in the Security Council. As the Chinese and the Russians have expressed their intentions not to support any humanitarian intervention as in the Libyan case, we may want to find out if the United Sates can go alone this time. My guess will be not until after the November 2012 US elections. As the carnage in Syria continues to play out before our very eyes, there is no doubt that power, I mean hard power, may well be the “secret” code that cracks this case. This is why the realists will always be right: power shall continue to determine both inter-state and intra-state relations. So far as Western powers are concerned, the current Syrian political (dictatorship) system is unsustainable. Any system short of some form of openness (expansion in the involvement of the polity) in the political process and governance is unacceptable to the West regarding the Syrian situation. This position is also outside what is could conveniently be deemed tolerable from the Assad regime’s point of view. Annan’s “fundamental change of course” by the Assad regime should be fundamental enough to get the opposition on board. There is no doubt that Annan’s true preference will be serious political reforms leading to elections and widespread participation of the Syrian people in the political process. Does this provide guarantees enough for Assad to secure and stabilize his reign in Syria? If this does not make the cut, Assad surely will not back down. He will fight to the last minute as the Qaddafi regime did. In the end, the side with the ultimate power will win the day and a new status quo will established.
Francis Wiafe-Amoako
University of Toronto