Syrian Conflict: Jaw-Jaw is better Than War-War

The recent G8 meeting held in Northern Ireland promised much in terms of finding a solution to the ongoing bloodshed in Syria.
 
Prime Minister David Cameron spent a considerable amount of time trying to piece together a united front, hoping to pressure President Bashar al-Assad’s regime into not only attending the proposed Geneva Conference, but meaningfully considering a settlement with the opposition forces. Although Cameron personally tried very hard, he could not convince President Vladimir Putin, who steadfastly repeated the consistent Russian foreign policy principle of non-intervention in Syrian affairs. Many continue to question whether Russian arms sales to the Syrian government help or hinder the situation.
 
Overall, it is the sacrosanct principle of sovereignty that has caused much discussion and debate concerning Syria in particular and how to promote democracy and openness in general. Given that states are constituted as territorial authorities, they subsequently lack the legitimate right to unilaterally control issues and events outside of their borders. Therefore, adherents to the school of sovereignty-at-all-costs are fundamentally attached to the inviolability of national borders and the rights of governments to be fully responsible for their own patches of territory on this earth.
 
Most of the G8 states opposed the Russian deference to sovereignty and put forward powerful arguments in favor of such policies as humanitarian intervention, with a particular emphasis on providing arms to the Syrian opposition. Much was made of the necessity for concerted international action focusing more on the prevalence of human suffering over the inviolability of state frontiers.
 
The mainstream argument against what can be termed an “ethical” foreign policy centers on objections to seeing self-interest in terms of universal ethics. It is assumed that following such a path inevitably leads to self-deception. Implicit within this argument is the high probability that ethics are probably an attempt to manipulate national interests through an ideological smokescreen, that it is part of a cunning ideological maneuver. National interests are thought to ultimately benefit by pretending to transcend and overcome themselves, therefore, making everybody believe in such a transformation.
 
The G8 summit did isolate Russia in terms of adamantly rejecting any kind of involvement and intervention, though France also made clear that arming rebels is a dangerous exercise -- one which needs to be very carefully thought out. Despite not being a member of the G8, vocally opposing such a stance has been Qatar, which has long championed active support for the Syrian opposition.
 
As diplomats have been talking, 18 Western and Arab countries -- including the US -- have been engaging in a military exercise known as “Eager Lion 2013” in Jordanian territory. The inclusion of naval forces as well as air forces, which has included F-16 fighter jets and Patriot missiles, has led several commentators to question whether this is a rehearsal for a future military intervention.
 
Whilst thousands are dying, the international media portrays the Syrian killings as a proxy battleground between the West and Russia, whereby a contained domestic power struggle is taking place with covert international support for both sides. It is important to transform this perception of the Syrian conflict to another domino along the path of the developing progressive Arab Spring. Incidentally, while the military exercises were taking place in neighboring Jordan, the Syrian regime declared that a new law had been enacted which foresees the incarceration of all persons illegally entering Syrian territory.
 
No national policy develops in a vacuum. Whether intentionally or not, states can affect processes as well as outcomes. In terms of advancing democracy, the preferred policy options of the past concentrated on communication and personalities. Throughout the Cold War, both superpowers engaged in transmitting their own interpretations concerning international developments as well as highlighting their social and economic achievements. Due to the available technology at the time, most of the resources were channeled into radio broadcasts. Those who are old enough probably remember tuning into Radio Moscow and Bizim Radyo as well as Voice of America.
 
Apart from radio broadcasts, promoting dissidents was another important means to highlight the displeasure regimes bore at home. Therefore, the Cold War witnessed both sides trying to convey their own views of the world as well as their idealized domestic circumstances. Added to this was the promotion of those who were discontented with their governments. Such policies had as their ultimate aim the conversion of large elements of society into democrats supporting regime change.
 
In the post-Cold War era, while the number of socialist countries has decreased drastically, there are many that are classified as either hybrid or authoritarian regimes. Some of these are attempting to liberalize and open themselves up to the international community. Others have noted the prevailing democratic wave of the post-Cold War era and are trying to accommodate the choppy waters while trying to restrain the effects of democracy as far as possible domestically.
 
The 1990s witnessed Western countries, led by the US, promoting democracy in the post-Soviet world. Having proclaimed themselves the drivers of democracy and willing to allocate large sums in terms of donations, Western countries were seen as guiding the newly independent states. A good example of this is the image of Turkey in post-Soviet Central Asia. The decade of the 1990s emerged as one whereby the Turkic states were unhappy regarding Turkey as a “Big Brother” and having to adopt either an “Iranian” or “Turkish” model. Such measures of tutelage did not, on the whole, have the desired effect. It was forgotten or overlooked that these societies had only very recently emerged from a very lopsided relationship with Moscow and certainly did not wish to accept a role as a junior partner or as a deserving student.
 
The 1990s witnessed the democracy donors as being impatient for progress and identifying themselves as partners campaigning for political change. Such actions necessarily call into question the “ownership” of the process and the change in itself. Involvement in such a manner was quite successful in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, but either a failure, or much less successful, elsewhere in the post-socialist bloc.
 
One of the main reasons for this concerned the existence of an external anchor. The European Union presented itself as a democratic anchor that would steady the wavering transition states. Membership in an organization heralded as a leading democracy promoter certainly made the work of democracy proponents that much easier and ultimately highly successful.
 
In other Eastern European countries such as Belarus and Ukraine, authoritarian regimes continued to hold onto the reins of political power. In these two countries, as well as in other authoritarian regimes, governments refused to relinquish formal agenda-setting. Whereas in the EU candidate countries democracy promoters campaigned alongside NGOs for new constitutions and new legal systems, these did not and have not arisen in authoritarian regimes. Outsiders were not and have not been given the opportunity to promote openness and liberalization.
 
Whilst the US and other democratic countries led from the front in those regimes that were willing to follow suit -- given the glittering EU prize -- other post-Soviet states have refused to go along. When there is no host government support, then no matter how much good intentions have been sowed into social and political projects, they tend to fail due to the lack of domestic political will. Not surprisingly, governments interpret and taint such projects and proposals as being foreign-based, thus willfully urging a nationalist backlash.
 
A noted success story of a totalitarian regime transitioning to a democracy is that of Mongolia. In this Northeast Asian country, the call for an end to communism and the adoption of democracy came from the Mongolian people themselves. Certainly the Western democracies have encouraged and supported such moves, but the main reason why the transition has been by and large successful is dependent on national political will. Mongolia has witnessed several peaceful changes of power, emanating from free and fair democratic elections, the last of which was the presidential election that took place only a few days ago.
 
The lesson to learn from previous actions encouraging transition to democracy is, therefore, the importance of political will and ownership. While none would agree that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was an oasis of liberalism, few can defend that present-day Iraq is the bastion of democracy. The external extinguishment of authoritarian regimes, as witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrates that while it is possible to demolish such atrocious governments, it is very difficult to establish democratic regimes that can stand on their own two feet. Given such recent experiences, many continue to question in all the G8 countries and beyond, what a post-Assad Syria would resemble.
 
Needless to say, “better the devil you know” arguments can be put forward opposing any action confronting violent regimes. Nevertheless, when the world’s strongest military power expresses a commitment to arm opposition groups engaged in what is resembling what one could conceivably call a civil war, then such an action will certainly have an impact on the target state. Given that according to Turkish media reports there are more than 400,000 Syrian refugees in Turkish territory, arming the Syrian opposition will undoubtedly and immediately impact Turkey.
 
Therefore, the military exercise “Eager Lion 2013” is another strong signal given to Damascus that the best way to resolve the bloodshed remains the Geneva Conference. Other alternatives may well be more costly for all sides, including neighboring states such as Jordan and Turkey. One returns to the old adage that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”