THE INTRIGUES OF CROSSING THE REDLINE IN SYRIA

THE INTRIGUES OF CROSSING THE  REDLINE IN SYRIA

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized...... "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."... Barack Obama (20th August 2012)

Just over a year ago, the President of the United States was quoted as saying this in an interview. At that time, the Syrian scenario was evolving from that of a protest/uprising to a full scale civil war. After series of wrangling, debates, resolutions and counter resolutions at the UN security council, the Syrian crises was allowed to rage devoid of significant external inference from the Great Powers (US, UK, France, Russia and China).

The Syrian case is so peculiar to the world and the entire Middle East that it cannot be ignored, if not for any reason one surely stands out—Syria’s Chemical weapons. Estimated to be about the world’s fourth largest, Syria’s Chemical weapon arsenal hosts a contingent of deadly nerve agents such as Sarin, VX, Mustard gas and Tabun. Believed to be having been acquired in the 1980’s, Syria hosts this weaponry as a deterrent to Israel among other reasons.

The advent of the 20^th century changed the face of warfare in the globe forever! From the use of the general purpose machine gun (GPMG) which mows down an advancing infantry to the use of ballistics which can effectively engage non neighbouring countries in war; not to talk of the advancement in military avionics; in contemporary warfare parlance, warfare is now either conventional or non-conventional.

After the use of Chlorine gas by German forces during WW1, the world has witnessed a rapid advancement and deployment of weapons of mass destruction in terms of Nuclear, Thermonuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons—all termed nonconventional weapons. Though all weapons (conventional & nonconventional) are deadly, nonconventional weapons have a long term adverse effect on the planet and indeed could aid the genocide of sections of humanity or the human race as a whole! This fact has prompted the great powers (US,UK, Russia, France and China) to sign and ratify several treaties banning the use and spread of non conventional weapons.

On the question of Chemical weapons, drafted in 1992 and ratified by 65 countries, the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of Chemical weapons. Of 189 UN member states which are parties to this, Syria and six other UN member nations are not parties to the convention.

Apparently hosted as a deterrent to Israel’s superior conventional military and undeclared nonconventional weapons arsenal, Syria’s Chemical arsenal is scattered across the country and with the Syrian uprising turning to a full blown civil conflict, there were fears that Syria’s Chemical assets could fall into wrong hands or that the Syrian army could use them against opposition forces. In July 2012, the Syrian foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi stated that the Syrian armed forces would never use chemical weapons against domestic opposition, while remarking that these weapons remained available for use against "external aggression". However, ever since then, reports/ rumours of the use of Chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict began to filter in.

SOME INCIDENCES

*        In September 2012, there were reports that the Syrian military had restarted testing of chemical weapons at a base on the outskirts of Aleppo.

*        On 23^rd December 2012, Al Jazeera released unconfirmed reports that a gas attack killed 7 civilians in the rebel-held al-Bayyada neighbourhood of Homs.

*        On 19 March 2013, new unconfirmed reports surfaced that SCUD missiles armed with chemical agents may have been fired into the Khan al-Asal district in Aleppo and the Al Atebeh suburbs of Damascus, with both sides accusing each other of carrying out the attack.

Among several confirmed and unconfirmed incidences, the one that triggered international attention was an alleged Chemical weapons use during intense fighting between government forces and rebels at Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus on 21^st August 2013.

Amid the accusations of Chemical weapon usage, the Syrian government has reiterated that’s its arsenal was in safe hands. However, it’s baffling when the Syrian government accuse rebels of using chemical weapons. Does it mean the rebels have access/ capability to use these weapons? Who can be held responsible or credible in the face of these accusations and counter accusations?

When Barack Obama made the ‘RED LINE’ statement after several frustrations at the UN Security Council, he was seen by some as merely throwing tantrums! After all, past United States interventions save that of Kosovo has resulted in unstable states in the end- Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Libya are perfect examples. He certainly won’t want another US mess in Syria especially with Israel at risk.

However, the Syrian scenario presents a changing face. Or how else will one describe a mere solidarity protest turning a large scale civil war with world power disagreeing on how best to act? Whatever the sides or parties to the conflict, it is agreed by all that Chemical weapons are a no-no in warfare. In an unstable and uncertain country as Syria, the fear of its proliferation among armed groups whether pro-government or antigovernment gives a cause for concern.

SAFE GUARDING SYRIA’s CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND THE RED LINE

Regardless of the rumours and accusations, the use of Chemical Weapons by any of the parties to the Syrian conflict is condemnable and Obama maybe pleased to act now. However even if any external action may be seen as an R2P (responsibility to protect), the policy and intrigues of the conflict calls for caution. Likely moves across the RED LINE are:

• *        Limited and targeted airstrikes against Syrian Military installation to reduce the capability of the Syrian Military.
• *        A commando raid and seizure of all of Syria’s Chemical weaponry in addition to air strikes
• *        This might provide a window for an attack/strikes on radical jihadist Islamic groups too as they are not trusted by the west. This ploy may help to enhance and single out a distinct rebel force to counterbalance the government forces.
• *        Knocking off of Syria’s air defences and establishing a no fly zone.
• However, UN inspectors are already on the ground in Syria to establish evidences. It remains to be seen if the Western powers will wait for their results or resolution from the UN Security Council before acting.

Whatever form the REDLINE crossing might take if it ever does happens, care must be taken to sustain the Assad regime else further quandary to the conflict if Assad is taken out by any of these actions. Syria’s neighbours will definitely feel some fall out too.

Turkey and Jordan already host US military bases and Syrian refugees and both countries should expect more.

For Israel and Lebanon, their cases are delicately critical. Lebanon is already feeling the strain in terms of refugee pressure (at some point, it is estimated that both Palestinian and Syrian refugees on Lebanese soil will outnumber the Lebanese. With Hezbollah actively participating in the Syrian conflict, their activities might be targeted by US air strikes. Israel will bear the brunt of a likely retaliatory attack and this time with the conflict nearer home, unlike the 1991 gulf war where Israel was placated from retaliating to Iraqi scud missiles, there might be some form of activity from the Israelis—probably airstrikes on Lebanon and Syria. Hoping their intelligence do a good job. And as for Iraq, it will serve as a retreat for any further insurgent actions in Syria. I’m sure the US will not want to go after them there!

One must not forget the proxies staring at a distance—Iran! Might just do some threating and underground supplies to its fighting proxies.

In all, the REDLINE crossing if not properly prosecuted might set the stage for a wider conflict across the Middle East. Whether a bluff or not, the actors must think before crossing the REDLINE!

"Yes, it is true, the great powers can wage wars,……but can they win them?"---Bashar Al Assad (Syrian President)