I
don't suppose that when anti-Assad protesters began their uprising in Syria 18
months ago, they looked in their diaries and murmured: "Hmm, US
presidential elections in November next year -- could be a problem."
But
perhaps they should have done, because they desperately need Washington's
attention, and they don't seem to be getting much of it. And until the November
elections are out of the way, I very much doubt that will change.
It
always used to be said that nothing ever happened in the Middle East unless the
US was directly involved. It was never quite as true as people liked to make
out (the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians, for example,
were signed in 1993 with only minimal involvement of the Americans).
It's
certainly not true any longer, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people in
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Arab world, who decided to take
their fate into their own hands and launch the Arab Spring.
And
yet. If you want effective international diplomatic action -- and even more so
if you want effective international military action -- you still need
Washington. With US eyes off the ball, having given up on the UN playing any
useful role in Syria, it looks as if there's a huge gap waiting to be filled.
Enter
stage right and stage left President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and prime minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Both think they can increase their regional
influence by playing an active role in Syria, but both are already running into
trouble.
Take
Mr Erdogan first. Once he was President Bashar al-Assad's friendly neighbour to
the north, keen to do business and not too bothered about the niceties of
democratic governance in Damascus.
But
shortly after the uprising began, he threw in his lot with the anti-Assad
protesters, called on the Syrian president to stand down, and was soon hosting
tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and, below the radar, offering assistance
to Syrian rebel forces.
Now
there are 80,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey, and Mr Erdogan is calling Syria a
"terrorist state", blaming President Assad for stirring up trouble
among Turkey's Kurdish minority. There's certainly been a sharp upsurge in
attacks by the Kurdish PKK guerrilla group, which is regarded as a terrorist
organisation not only by Ankara, but also by the US and the European Union.
Just
this week, there have been reports of major clashes between Turkish forces and
PKK fighters, involving a reported 2,000 Turkish troops and including military
action across the border in Iraq. How long, some observers are asking, before
Turkish forces cross into Syria in hot pursuit of their PKK foes?
As
for President Morsi of Egypt, he's playing a very different game. As a man of
the Muslim Brotherhood, he's keen to make common cause with the Sunni majority
in Syria, who make up the bulk of the anti-Assad forces. He's also keen to show
his Arab neighbours that after 30 years of Hosni Mubarak's staunch loyalty to
the US, Egypt is now charting its own, independent foreign policy.
But
his first attempt to carve out a role for himself in the Syria crisis was
short-lived. At the summit of the non-aligned movement in Tehran last month, he
hoped to broker a new diplomatic initiative which would include Iran, as
Syria's most loyal ally, and the Arab states of the Gulf which have been
backing the Syria rebels.
To
be a broker, though, you have to command the respect of both sides. And Mr
Morsi's strongly-worded attack on President Assad infuriated not only Damascus
but also Tehran. End of Morsi initiative.
So
what are we left with? Washington engrossed in an election campaign for the
next two months; an Egypt still trying to find its feet on the diplomatic
stage; and a Turkey becoming seriously alarmed at the risk of blow-back, having
dumped President Assad so early on.
Meanwhile,
nearly a quarter of a million Syrians are estimated to have fled to
neighbouring countries -- most of them to Jordan -- and the level of casualties
in Syria is higher than at any point since the uprising began.
Turkish
calls for a buffer zone on Syrian soil to offer some protection to Syrian
non-combatants seem likely to go nowhere, for the simple reason that buffer
zones need military protection, and no one looks ready to send troops to Syria.
No
wonder the new international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who has now taken over from
Kofi Annan, calls his mission "nearly impossible".
No comments:
Post a Comment