In regards to Syria’s situation, it is interesting to quote how the Lebanese expert Nadīm Šaḥāda said in one of his articles: he denounces the lack of a clear declaration from the part of the international community towards the Syrian regime and as a consequence the transmission of a wrong message. That is that the regime government has carte blanche to establish his supremacy over Syria again.According to Šaḥāda, al-Asad, power is based on the idea that the regime is essential and irreplaceable and that it is the only one able to offer peace and regional stability. Nobody from the opposition is allowed to emerge as a valid alternative, army included. There is also the need to convince the world that if the regime fell, there would be several events: a “sectarian” civil war, an Islamic fundamentalism will emerge, a war with Israel, instability in Iraq and Lebanon and ethnic cleansing of religious minorities,. According to the author the combination of these elements prevents the international community to act against the regime. The survival of the regime depends more on the possible objectification of this idea (both on local and international level) than on its capacity to suppress Syrian people.
According to the Lebanese expert the “Arab Spring” arrived in the wrong moment, that is when the debate about the middle-eastern region was promoting a stability and engagement policy with local dictators. Ideas as changes of regimes, democratization and intervention are related to the Bush era’s shock and replaced by a new realism which prevailed on the international issues. The author reminds that this new approach is evident in two events happened in Europe. On the occasion of the launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2003, when people claimed that European security depended on being surrounded by well-ruled countries with the image of European leaders side by side with Mubārak, Bin ʻAlī, al-Asad, and also on the occasion of the launch of the Union for the Mediterranean in Paris in summer 2008, when the Heads of bad-ruled States were there.
The combination of a post-colonial sense of guilt, the fear to create another Iraq, to have to intervene in another Libya and to face another cold war with Russia contributed to the restiveness of European leaders to act.
In conclusion the author claims that in Syria the point of no return has been crossed and it is only a time and money matter to achieve a change in this country. However, the lack of clearness by the side of the West will contribute to make this process more expensive and longer. The West can’t be neutral: as the Lebanese expert claims, hesitation can be translated in a licence to kill.
This is the final instalment of this analysis of The Arab Spring! It was written by Patrizia of the London Translation Agency, Quick Lingo. If you have any questions or comments or even further analysis then please feel free to comment!