Instability in Syria: West Asia Crisis Continues

Russia won a promise from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on February 7 to bring an end to bloodshed in Syria, but Western and Arab nations acted to isolate Assad further after activists and rebels said his forces killed over 100 in the city of Homs. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, representing a rare ally on a trip to the Syrian capital – Damascus –other states are shunning, said Russia now wanted to resolve Syria's crisis in line with an Arab plan. Moscow and Beijing vetoed in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Russian mediation failed to slow a rush by countries that denounced the Russian-Chinese veto three days ago to corner Syria diplomatically and cripple Assad with sanctions in hopes of toppling him and encouraging reforms to avert chaos in a region straddling major fault lines of Middle East conflict.
Earlier on February 5, Russia and China joined forces in a double veto to knock down a Western-Arab UNSC Resolution backing an Arab League plan for President Al-Assad to step aside. The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan aimed at ending 11 months of bloodshed as Syria has sought to crush an anti-Assad uprising.
Both Moscow and Beijing do not agree with the Arab League’s approach, which was supported by the US and its West European allies. The opponents of the resolution wanted a consensus to be arrived at before taking it to the Security Council which was not possible. The two Asian giants fear that once they approve of the UN intervention to resolve the crisis in Syria, a sovereign nation, tomorrow the method can be used against them also. But they are not justified in going against the will of the Syrian masses. As the world has seen, dictators like Al-Assad have no regard for people’s aspirations for democracy. They can kill any number of people to perpetuate their autocratic rule. What happened in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen is before all of us to see.
At present, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Although Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, the February 4 veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But the US approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented.
In November 2011, the Arab League has suspended Syria until President Al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining.
Killings of Innocent People
Syrian forces unleashed a barrage of mortars and artillery on the battered city of Homs, sending terrified residents fleeing into basements and killing more than 300 people in what appeared to be the bloodiest episode in the nearly 11-month-old uprising. However, the Syrian Government denied the assault. It said the reports were part of a “hysterical campaign” of incitement by armed groups against Syria.
There were signs that the bombardment in Homs, Syria's third largest city, was in response to moves by army defectors to solidify their control in several neighborhoods. There were reports that defectors set up new checkpoints in several areas, and two activists from Homs said defectors attacked a military checkpoint in the Khaldiyeh District and captured 17 soldiers. The activists spoke on condition of anonymity to protect themselves from retaliation.
Ongoing Protests
Undoubtedly, the worst news of all is that this probably means that Syria is heading down into the same kind of hell that Lebanon went through in its fifteen-year civil war (1975-90).
The Syrian protests began as a brave attempt to emulate the non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. The Assad regime would kill people, of course, but if the protesters stood fast and refused to kill back, ultimately the regime’s support would just drain away. Non-violence was doubly important in the Syrian case, because if it were a violent revolution various minorities would feel gravely threatened.
However, the non-violent strategy has foundered on the rock of Syria’s sectarian and ethnic divisions. Sunni deserters from the Army started fighting back, and all the other communities took fright. Now it’s a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers.
India’s Decision
By going along with the vetoed UNSC Resolution on Syria, India primarily expressed its disappointment with the continued prevarication by the Assad government in implementing the political package of reforms it promised late last year and over several incidents of armed assault on peaceful protesting congregations since discontent engulfed the country in 2011.
Hardeep Puri, India's permanent representative in the United Nations, read with his explanation of vote, showed that New Delhi was upset at the winding up of the Arab League's observer mission in Syria but it differed widely from the Arab League's prescriptions, reflected in the draft resolution. Unlike the Arab League and the draft resolution, India did not ask for multiparty elections in a time frame or the freedom of movement sought all over the country for a wide range of actors from AL observers to the international media and humanitarian organizations.
India has demonstrated its capacity to take a clear stand on any regional or global issue. It is not a question of going along with the US and the rest of the West. India has to play its own independent role to protect its interests in West Asia.
Need of the Hour
Syria is just as complex a society as Lebanon, although we can still hope that the war does not go on as long. And it’s entirely possible that the Assad regime, whose senior ranks are mostly drawn from the Alawite minority (only 10 percent of the population), has deliberately chosen civil war. Better that than surrender power and expose the Alawites to the vengeance they fear from all those whom they have ruled for the past 40 years.
The Western countries have only themselves to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a US-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The UNSC Resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'s aim of violent regime change in Syria.
The Syrian National Council (SNC) is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the National Coordination Committee (NCC). Moreover, with the regime in Syria drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Country’s Brief Facts
Modern Syria gained its independence from France in 1946 but has lived through periods of political instability driven by the conflicting interests of these various groups. From 1958-61 it united with Nasser's Egypt, but an army coup restored independence before the Alawite-controlled pan-Arab Baath (Renaissance) party took control in 1963. It rules to this day.
The Baath government has seen authoritarian rule at home and a strong anti-Israeli policy abroad, particularly under former President Hafez al-Assad. In 1967 Syria lost the Golan Heights to the Israelis, while civil war in neighboring Lebanon allowed it to extend its political and military influence in the region.
Syria pulled its forces out of Lebanon in 2005, having come under intense international pressure to do so after the assassination of Lebanese former premier Rafik Hariri. A UN report implicated Syrian and pro-Syria Lebanese officials in the killing.
The government has dealt harshly with domestic opposition. Tens of thousands are reported to have been killed in the crackdown on the 1982 uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. In 2011 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring that toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.

Mutiny in Maldives: President Nasheed Resigns

The first democratically elected president of the Maldives resigned on February 7 and was replaced by his vice president after the police and army clashed in the streets of the island nation amid protests over the arrest of a top judge.
Keeping the uncontrolled situation in view, President Mohamed Nasheed stepped down after a police mutiny described as an “attempted coup”, capping weeks of upheaval. Mutiny by sections of the police and the army forced President Nasheed to quit. Vice President Mohamed Waheed, who previously worked as a top UNICEF official and clashed with Nasheed over the chief justice’s detention, was sworn in as president.
The resignation of President Nasheed marked a stunning fall for the former human rights campaigner who defeated the nation's longtime ruler in the country's first multiparty election.
Beginning of Crisis
The dramatic day began in the early hours when a group of policeman refused orders to break up an anti-government protest. It is said that members of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) were assaulted by officers, who later took over the state television station.
Nasheed had been facing increasingly violent street protests and a constitutional crisis ever since he got a judge arrested on January 16, after accusing him of being ‘in the pocket’ of his predecessor Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who had ruled for 30 years before Nasheed was swept to power in 2008 as the first democratically elected President of Maldives.
Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) had called for the overthrow of the government and for citizens to launch a jihad against the President. The Gayoom government had arrested Nasheed 27 times and imprisoned him for six years in all while agitating for democracy.
The situation turned ugly on February 7, with sections of the police and the army joining protesters in the capital Male and taking over the state-owned TV channel. Soon thereafter Nasheed announced that he was stepping down so that the government did not have to use force against Maldivians.
The street protests began with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Criminal Court of Maldives, Abdulla Mohamed, on January 16, forcing the government to seek assistance from the UN as well as from the Commonwealth, for a team of legal experts to visit the country and help resolve the impasse.
The government had accused Judge Abdulla of being in complicity with criminals. “The opposition has been inciting people and spreading hatred to mobilise activists on the ground; the inflammatory speeches and incitement to violence is not something that the government can condone,” Maldivian Foreign Secretary Mohamed Naseer, who was in Colombo in the last week of January, had said.
The opposition PPM denied allegations of extremism. A PPM official in the Maldives claimed that violence during the protests had been instigated by vigilanttes unleashed by the government, many of whom hard-core criminals released from prison under a special program called ‘second chance.’
The islands are located strategically to the south west of India and straddle what is called the 9 degree channel of sea lane of communication. Indian warships patrol the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the islands as a goodwill gesture. The nation is within India’s sphere of influence and Indian Navy maintains regular contact.
Genesis of Problem
The issue came to a boil in mid-2010, when opposition members forced a deadlock by blocking all legislation. Stirring the pot continuously were a range of actors, from President Gayoom's half-brother, who heads an opposition party, to Islamists, who accused Nasheed of diluting the official religion. In the past few weeks, Male saw protests by Islamic radicals, who vandalised a mural presented by Pakistan to commemorate the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in November 2011 as “un-Islamic”, and a Buddha statue gifted by Sri Lanka.
The opposition had also accused Nasheed of being anti-Islamic. Nasheed had swept to power in 2008 , pledging to introduce ‘full democracy’ to the low lying islands (1,200 of them, mostly uninhabited and none more than six feet above the sea level) and campaigning passionately on the dangers of climate change and rising sea levels.
India’s Stance
India has acted wisely by keeping out of the political tumult in the Maldives, and allowing events to take their own course. Entirely different circumstances dictated India's 1988 decision to send commandos to prevent a coup against Gayoom by Sri Lankan Tamil militants hired by his Maldivian opponents. In the present instance, any intervention to help Nasheed remain in power would have served neither him nor India well.
As many as 30,000 Indians in Maldives are said to be safe. Nasheed had sought military intervention by India to foil the ‘coup’. But while the India had flown in paratroopers and commandos in 1988 to foil a coup-attempt in Maldives, this time the Indian Government made it plain that it did not want to interfere.
Nevertheless, New Delhi can do without a radical Islamist state in its immediate neighborhood. India should have played a more pro-active role in helping Nasheed to tide over the crisis. This is in sharp contrast to former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi acting decisively to thwart a coup in Maldives in 1988.
Brief Profile of New President
Hassan, who was educated at Stanford University in California, was the first television anchor in Maldives history and the first person shown live when local TV went on the air in 1978, according to his official biography.
According to Hassan’s biography, he became a top education official in the country, but eventually left under duress after getting elected to Parliament and incurring the ire of the autocratic government ruling in the 1990s. He joined UNICEF and rose to be its representative in Afghanistan, helping rebuild schools and provide health services after the fall of the Taliban.
Assessment
The present crisis that has engulfed Maldives is a manifestation of the simmering battle for control over the country’s politics and administration between Nasheed, who was elected President in 2008 when the first free and fair election was held in 2008, and his predecessor, Gayoom, a ruthless autocrat. Behind the facade of anti-Nasheed protests that have succeeded in unseating him lurks the ugly face of radical Islamists.
They have been eyeing power for some time now and the protests came as a golden opportunity for them to stage their version of the ‘Arab Spring’. Already, there are signals of Maldives adopting fanaticism as state policy. This does not augur well for India.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been in focus since more than a decade. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had already unanimously adopted a resolution asking all non-NPT states to join the treaty.
The 15-member council, while urging “other states” outside the NPT to join the controversial treaty as “non-nuclear states” to help rid the world of atom bombs, also urged all countries to sign and ratify the CTBT and refrain from conducting atomic tests. India has not signed the CTBT yet.
The Security Council had adopted a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution. Through this resolution, the Security Council had called upon all nations to sign the NPT. The countries that have not so far signed it have been asked to do so. Under this treaty a ban has been imposed on making nuclear bomb in the future.
The “other states”, which were not named in the resolution, were a clear reference to Pakistan and India, which have not signed the NPT, but are known to have atomic arsenals, and Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms but is believed to have a sizeable stockpile of warheads.
The resolution also calls for talks on drafting a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The mandate of the council came when it approved the resolution 1887 that calls on countries that have not signed the nuclear NPT “to comply fully with all their obligations”. The resolution will strengthen the NPT.
India’s Stance
A convergence of international factors — political, economic and military — has led to a situation where correct and timely decisions on the treaty can enhance India’s standing as a nuclear weapon state as well as brighten its economic prospects.
The reverse is also true. It is, therefore, important that the ongoing debate in the country on the CTBT is set on the right parameters.
Hitherto, the debate has been fudged by hangovers from the past. The NPT and CTBT have criss-crossed, their lines of distinction blurred in public perception. Another term in current international lexicon, the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), adds to the confusion.
Little is understood about the FMCT and the clout that India could wield by a correct posturing on this treaty, which is still in the making. Even more than the substance of these treaties — distinct in themselves — it is the history surrounding them that has influenced opinion in this country. It would be in order, therefore, to have a glimpse of this history and a closer look at what these treaties mean to India.
India has decided to affix its signature on the treaty. India has refused to abide by the Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty. India said it could not join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.
The Indian Air Force chief recently expressed apprehension of a possibility of a nuclear attack on India. In the past also India was asked to sign the NPT, but it declined to do so pleading that unless and until nuclear-weapon nations destroy their nuclear arms, the treaty would be useless. Now, India has yet again refused to sign the NPT. At that time India stated that some other nations are in possession of nuclear weapons, hence it will need to make its own nuclear weapons for the sake of self-defense because in view of the need of self-defense it is not advisable to sign the NPT.
Now, India, once again declining to be a signatory to the treaty, vehemently opposed the UN security calls. It pleaded: "We cannot implement the regulations thrust upon other nations, for these impinge upon the sovereignty and national interests." It will not be in the country's interests to accept such decisions.
India has already taken a categorical stand not to make first use of the nuclear weapons to which it is completely committed. India's permanent representative at the United Nations, Hardip Singh Puri, has in a communication to Susan Rice of Security Council raised questions on its role in the implementation of international treaties.
India’s refusal to sign the NPT is based on unexceptionable grounds of national security. While Pakistan has been a ‘rogue state’ which has fuelled nuclear proliferation by sharing its know-how for making nuclear weapons with China, North Korea, Libya and Iran, India has had an absolutely clean record of eschewing both proliferation and aggressive intent. It is this country’s misfortune that it is flanked by a nuclear-armed China which has had expansionist designs in the past and a hand-in-glove nuclear Pakistan which is most untrustworthy and sinister. If, in the circumstances, India seeks to retain its right to stay nuclear to deter its recalcitrant neighbors, it can hardly be faulted. India’s stand that the nuclear weapon states must work towards total disarmament to carry conviction is also perfectly legitimate.
There has been an important transformation after Pokhran II: India is now unambiguously a weapon state, with transparent and credible nuclear weapon capability. The thermonuclear test, backed by advanced Indian nuclear technology, further uplifted India’s status, completely changing India’s situation vis-a-vis the CTBT. Hurdles to India to being a full signatory to the CTBT are not per se in the draft of the treaty as such but in the continuing shadow cast by the NPT. In the event, the right course would be for India to declare its adherence to the CTBT unambiguously, while reserving the final step of signing and ratifying to an assurance from the United States — and others — that in implementation of CTBT, India’s nuclear status will be equal to the five recognized weapon powers.
Demand for Amendment to NPT Treaty
Simultaneously, eight nations of the world, including India, have demanded an amendment in the NPT treaty. The Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. The resolution passed by 15-member SC that the remaining nations should sign the NPT. The resolution adopted under the leadership of the United States, China, and Russia also has affirmed it.

Many nations, including India have not signed the NPT. The plea put forward by them is that developed nations have built their nuclear weapon reserves and the NPT is being thrust upon other nations, which is absolutely unjustified. The question arises whether countries in possession of nuclear weapons will not browbeat countries that do not have such weapons. For instance, Pakistani rulers in the past have been holding out, lamenting nuclear attacks on India.
Obama’s Indication
US President Barack Obama first signaled his dedication to the cause of the NPT at Prague way back in April 2009. While stressing non-proliferation, and indicating his preference for reducing the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, the US leader revealingly also said, "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies." This underlines that the US proposes one set of standards for itself, and another for India. This country’s long-held position has been that it is in favor of comprehensive nuclear disarmament, and that non-proliferation is not a substitute for this. President Obama is yet to offer disarmament as an attainable goal.
So long as that remains the case, it will continue to be on the wrong side of political morality. India too has been lax in not publicly countering the American stance under Obama right after Prague. It has also been remiss on another count. After the passage of UNSC Resolution 1887, its official view is that it won’t sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, whose obligations are of a different order under the NPT from those who have come on board as nuclear weapons states. This is at variance with this country’s original stance that the NPT ought to be rejected on grounds of being an inequitable arrangement that allows nuclear weapons only in the hands of a few.
Even now, India has voiced the apprehension that it is faced with a threat from Pakistani terrorists that intend to carry out a nuclear offensive against India because it is apprehended that some of the nuclear weapons of Pakistan have found their way to Al-Qaida and other groups. The United States had stated that Pakistani terrorists pose a big threat to India.
Even as the United Nations desires to make the world free of nuclear weapons as per the secretary general, it is high time to move forward. India has declined to sign the NPT, saying that it will not do so until nuclear weapon nations destroy their nuclear weapon reserves. The Indian stand is fully justified.
In varying degrees, the five NPT weapon powers are unwilling to give up their superior status which finds no place in the CTBT as such. A new brand of doublespeak nuclear diplomacy is at work. China wants India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapon status, citing a Security Council resolution, while France and Russia are veering round to de facto acceptance of India's nuclear weapon status provided this country accedes to the CTBT. The US, the decisive power in creation of the global non-proliferation regime, is mid-way.