Sanctions on Syria
Despite the new pledge for reforms and amnesty announced by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, the situation in Syria is deteriorating rapidly.
In the midst of all the political upheavals at home, comes additional pressure from outside, in the shape of an extension in sanctions. The European Union, in light of the continued use of brute force against civilians by the Syrian government recently announced an extension of the sanctions against some firms and persons who are believed to be involved in protests suppression. A number of lists proposing sanctions against Syrian government affiliates and companies have been prepared by EU states and may obtain approval in absence of any objections in the near future.
While this may be the least of Assad’s worries at present, this could act as a catalyst and may also be the reason for the start of dissent in his inner circle. The whole purpose of these sanctions is
to implement measures demonstrative of international disapproval of the current going on’s and to put much-needed pressure on a regime that has chosen the path of suppression and force to quieten any legitimate demands.
The problem is that even Assad’s well-meaning promises to reform the administration and reconstitute the political mechanism are no longer acceptable. First is the problem of credibility. The people no longer trust the government, which is essential for any leader’s stay in power. Second, by adopting contradictory policies, the government has only earned a bad name. On the one hand the people are offered amnesty with several hundred prisoners being released and on the other hand larger numbers are detained and subjected to brutalities and torture.
To date at least 1,300 people have been killed and thousands detained and displaced. Even as tens of thousands seek refuge across the border in Turkey, the United Nations has appealed to Syria to allow missions access to determine facts and extend humanitarian help.
Though Syria recently agreed to give Red Cross wider access to civilians it is unlikely to allow fact finding missions, given the closed nature of the regime and its paranoia about leakage of information to the outside world.
Each passing day has seen the death toll mount amid rising instability. It is time the Syrian government immediately starts its National Dialogue initiative in order to prevent the situation from exacerbating.
Cameron’s puzzle
David Cameron’s exasperation is understandable. Perhaps, his military leaders went louder than his pitch. Their concern that the expedition in Libya is getting overstretched is well taken.
The reason: what was supposed to be primarily a mission to enforce a no-fly zone over the Libyan skies, to save the people from the embattled dictator’s onslaught, is now blown out of proportion into a perpetual military conflict. This is why the British naval lord and the army chief’s submission that they won’t be able to carry over this adventure post-summer — in the wake of budget cuts and logistical hindrances — is purely a professional concern. Cameron cannot get away by just snubbing his commanders, by saying that ‘you just do the fighting’, and rather should revisit the exigency for which London walked into another uncalled for intervention.
For many of the Brits, it’s a déjà vu phenomenon. Cameron is more or less in Tony Blair’s spotlight, wherein dossiers and intelligence feeds were fudged to make a presentable case for warfare. The wafer-thin difference is the fact that then Britain made it clear that its aim is to dislodge Saddam Hussein, whereas this time around getting Col Muammar Gaddafi is an unannounced agenda. But in both the cases, it seems the military gear went into exhaustion before time, as it lacked the capability and the desired political agenda to dig its heels. The trend of fighting wars thousands of miles away is rapidly turning out to be an improbability — even for the industrialised and military giants. US President Barack Obama’s policy prescription to pull troops out of Afghanistan at the earliest is a case in point. The British prime minister, too, should take a cue from his ally across the Atlantic and get down for a serious brainstorming session with his military personnel.
Cameron can do well by having a tête-à-tête with French President Nicolas Sarkozy whose restlessness to walk into the North African territory for obvious geo-economic consideration had pushed Britain on the brink. Sarkozy apart from yesteryears colonial connections has a perfect political reason to drag his feet, as he vies for re-election in May next year. But the battered British troops who found manning Basra to be an un-preferable and unsustainable mandate, of course, can’t stay put in the marshlands of Libya, if NATO ever decided to roll in ground troops. With the omissions chart getting wider in executing firepower over Tripoli and Benghazi, British commanders logically have a point to get perturbed. It’s time the premier should read between the lines.
Some respite in Sudan
Thankfully, further fighting in Sudan’s Abyei region has been averted because of a deal mediated by the former South African president Thabo Mbeki that entails the withdrawal of the Sudanese troops from the area.
Despite Khartoum’s pledge earlier to honour the larger referendum in favour of the secession of southern Sudan, tensions remained high. The issue of Abyei is yet to be resolved with the independent referendum planned for this region having been indefinitely postponed because of several obstacles, one of them being the eligibility of voters. Either way unless the Abyei residents decide on joining either the North or the South, the issue will remain and will consistently throw up spanners in normalising relations between the two.
For now at least, thanks to external mediation, North Sudanese forces will withdraw and allow the deployment for about 4,000 Ethiopian peacekeeping troops till a more permanent solution is thought of. Abyei is also to have a joint administration on the same lines as the previous arrangement before the seizure by the Northern forces. Under the agreement, all displaced Abyei residents could immediately return. This is positive news since Sudan’s internal problems have long obstructed any movement forward. Speculation was rife that Northern Sudanese President Omar al Bashir will use force to prevent the breakup of Sudan that incidentally meant renouncing the rights on oil since Sudan’s energy resources fall in Southern territory after the split. Imposing control on Abyei and using force to wrest control of other contentious areas were obvious attempts to intimidate and force Northern rule by Khartoum. This however was proving disastrous since it led to a breakout of wider fighting between tribes whose allegiance with either side led to further conflict. Short of a country-wide civil war, the situation in Sudan was deteriorating by the day. Though there remain many a hurdle to achieving a peaceful resolution of the North-South divide and reaching a workable agreement on sharing of oil revenues, internal displacements and deciding of borders, the current developments portend hope, albeit faint.
It is hoped that better sense prevails among the Sudanese leaders and they are able to overcome existing differences and let go of past acrimony. For the sake of the Sudanese people and internal stability, the two sides must arrive at a mutually agreed roadmap that deals with all the issues at hand in an equitable manner.
0 comments:
Post a Comment