Fighting reaches the gates of Damscus!

[Darth Wagtaros]

This is somehow the fault of the Jews.

[Admiral Yi]

I wonder where the Alawites are going to end up fleeing to.  Iraq might be the best bet.

[Razgovory]

Into the frying pan...

[Iormlund]

Better than Jordan?

[Admiral Yi]

Better than Jordan?

I figured Alawites, being Shiite Mormons, would feel more welcome in Shiite majority Iraq than Sunni majority Jordan.

[Sheilbh]

I figured Alawites, being Shiite Mormons, would feel more welcome in Shiite majority Iraq than Sunni majority Jordan.

They're not Shiite.  At least my understanding is that they claim they are but historically I think they've been considered heretics.  For political reasons Khomeini issued a fatwa that confirmed that they are Muslims but I don't think any other major Shia Ayatollahs have accepted them.

[jimmy olsen]

Russia and China act like dicks, film at 11.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/04/assad-obama-resign-un-resolution

Syria resolution vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations

• Thirteen other council members vote in favour
• UK and US react with fury to decision
• Homs death toll more than 200, say activists

    Paul Harris in New York, Martin Chulov, David Batty and Damien Pearse
    guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 February 2012 22.28 GMT
    Article history

Russia and China have vetoed a UN security council resolution calling for the Syrian president to step down, provoking a furious reaction.

All 13 other members of the council, including the US, France and Britain, voted in favour of the resolution, which backed an Arab peace plan aimed at stopping the violence in Syria. Russia and China blocked the resolution because of what they perceived to be a potential violation of Syria's sovereignty, which could allow for military intervention or regime change.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, condemned the decision. "More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the last draft resolution in October 2011," he said after the vote. "How many more need to die before Russia and China allow the UN security council to act?

"Those opposing UN security council action will have to account to the Syrian people for their actions, which do nothing to help bring an end to the violence that is ravaging the country. The United Kingdom will continue to support the people of Syria and the Arab League to find an end to the violence and allow a Syrian-led political transition."

The draft resolution, tabled by Morocco, did not impose sanctions or authorise military action and contained nothing that warranted opposition, Hague said. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, reacted angrily to the news at a press conference in Munich on Saturday night: "What more do we need to know to act decisively in the security council? To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria."

Responding to the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, who asked "What's the endgame?", Clinton replied: "The endgame in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war."

Hague accused Russia and China of siding with "the Syrian regime and its brutal suppression of the Syrian people in support of their own national interests. Their approach lets the Syrian people down, and will only encourage President Assad's brutal regime to increase the killing, as it has done in Homs over the past 24 hours."

France's ambasador to the UN, Gerard Araud, said: "It is a sad day for the council. It is a sad day for Syria ... History has compounded our shame."

The defeat came despite concerted efforts by western leaders to get security council backing for the resolution censuring the Damascus regime.

Speaking before the vote, Barack Obama called for Assad to step down following the latest bloodshed. The US president said Assad had lost his legitimacy as a ruler and had "no right" to cling to power. He said the regime's policy of terrorising its people "only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse".

Britain and France also condemned the violence and called for decisive action by the international community in an apparent rebuke to Russia, which carried out its threat to veto the draft resolution.

Death tolls cited by activists and opposition groups ranged from 217 to 260, making the Homs attack the deadliest so far in Assad's crackdown on protests that erupted 11 months ago in response to uprisings that overthrew three Arab leaders.

Hague said it was time for countries to stop giving "shelter" to the regime after the assault on Homs. "The Syrian regime's actions display President Assad's cold-blooded cynicism in the face of mounting international pressure for the UN security council to do its utmost to end the bloodshed.

"The time is long past for the international community, particularly those that have so far sheltered the Assad regime, to intensify the pressure to end over 10 months of violence."

The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said the Homs bloodshed was a crime against humanity and "those who block the adoption of such a resolution are taking a grave historical responsibility".

But the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, criticised the UN resolution, saying it made too few demands of anti-government armed groups, and could prejudge the outcome of a dialogue among political forces in the country.

Russian news agencies reported that Lavrov and Russia's foreign intelligence chief, Mikhail Fradkov, will meet with Assad in Damascus on Tuesday. Syria has been a key Russian ally since Soviet times and Moscow has opposed any UN demands that could be interpreted as advocating military intervention or regime change.

Earlier on Saturday, Tunisia decided to expel Syria's ambassador in response to the "bloody massacre" in Homs and said it no longer recognised the Assad regime. As news of the violence spread, a crowd of Syrians stormed their country's embassy in Cairo and protests broke out outside Syrian missions in Britain, Germany and the US.

Homs residents said pro-Assad forces began shelling the Khaldiya neighbourhood at around 8pm on Friday using artillery and mortars. They said at least 36 houses with families inside were destroyed. "We were sitting inside our house when we started hearing the shelling. We felt shells were falling on our heads," said Waleed, a resident of Khaldiya.

It was not immediately clear what had prompted Syrian forces to launch such an intense bombardment, just as diplomats at the security council were discussing the draft resolution supporting the Arab League demand for Assad to step aside.

Some activists said the violence was triggered by a wave of army defections in Homs, a stronghold of protests and armed insurgents whom Assad has vowed to crush. "The death toll is now at least 217 people killed in Homs, 138 of them killed in the Khaldiya district," Rami Abdulrahman, head of the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told Reuters, citing witnesses.

"Syrian forces are shelling the district with mortars from several locations, some buildings are on fire. There are also buildings which got destroyed."

An activist said forces bombarded Khaldiya to scare other rebel neighbourhoods. "It does not seem that they get it. Even if they kill 10 million of us, the people will not stop until we topple him."

The opposition Syrian National Council said 260 civilians were killed, describing it as "one of the most horrific massacres since the beginning of the uprising in Syria". It said it believed Assad's forces were preparing for similar attacks around Damascus and in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour.

Another group, the Local Co-ordination Committees, gave a death toll of more than 200. It is not possible to verify activist or state media reports as Syria restricts independent media access. Video footage on the internet showed at least eight bodies assembled in a room, one of them with the top half of its head blown off. A voice on the video said the bombardment was continuing as the video was being filmed.

[Mr.Penguin]

After seeing how the Libyan "no-fly zone" turned into flying bombing missions in support of armed "democratic activists", don't expect the Russian to support any UN resolution with any tangible demands towards Assad. A simple question "of fool me once, fool me twice"...

[Tamas]

Also there is the age-old matter of precedent. I can see why Russia or China would not like to see UN support for brutally opressed muslim tribes.

[Martinus]

Russia and China act like dicks, film at 11.

Uhm, it's rather: the UN Security Council members play out their roles to a T. Everyone can happily continue doing nothing. Film at 11.

You really are stupid enough to think everyone else was just jumping up and down to do something about the Syrian crisis and Russia and China, unexpectedly, prevented them from doing so?

[frunk]

The big difference is that Qaddafi pissed off just about everyone at one point or another, while the Assads have been consistent in their loyalties.

[Iormlund]

It's an important lesson for a wannabe dictator. Your Western allies will ask you to surrender your power. Russia and China will happily sell you more weapons.

[Mr.Penguin]

It's an important lesson for a wannabe dictator. Your Western allies will ask you to surrender your power. Russia and China will happily sell you more weapons.

Or claim to be royalty, it worked for Bahrain...

[KRonn]

Russia is walking a tightrope. They don't want to abandon Assad in case he remains in power. Russia has investments and its only Med naval base is there. But they risk waiting things out and if Assad falls then his successors may not be too amicable towards a Russia that supported their foe.

The US does the same with Bahrain, supported the regime when its people were rioting. US has a naval base there for the 5th fleet. Also walking a tightrope with Yemen. The US abandoned Mubarak in time as it looked like he was going down anyways. But risks the perception of not standing by Arab allies, and governments like Saudi Arabia's Royalty must be a bit nervous about US support.

[Sheilbh]

The UN Fails Syria
Posted By Marc Lynch   Sunday, February 5, 2012 - 12:56 PM     Share

The veto cast by Russia and China on Saturday blocked action by the United Nations Security Council to back the Arab League's initiative to stop the killing and facilitate a political transition in Syria.  The vetos came despite a concerted effort by the resolution's backers to meet the most significant objections, in particular their consistently repeated assurance that there would be no military intervention.  It was not the "revenge of the BRICS" as some have suggested, since both India and South Africa backed the 13-2 majority (and Brazil would have done so had it still been on the Council). US Ambassador Susan Rice called the vetos "shameful."  I agree.

The failed UN resolution was not perfect, but for all the reasons I outlined last week it offered the best hope for mobilizing sustained international pressure on the Asad regime.  It would have sent a powerful signal to Syrians on all sides of international consensus, held out at least some hope for a political path, and required observation of the mandated ceasefire and regular reporting to the Security Council.  Many sympathetic with the Syrian opposition had blasted the resolution as worse than nothing since it did not authorize military intervention or, in its final version, explicitly call for Asad to step down.  They were mistaken, as I think many now realize. 

The veto will diminish the relevance of the United Nations and increase the odds that Syria will descend even further into a civil war fueled by a flood of weapons and aid to all parties. Before the vote, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned that "the endgame, in the absence of us acting together as the international community, is civil war."  She was right.  The UN's failure won't end regional and international efforts to deal with the escalating brutality, but it will now force those efforts into other, less effective and less internationally legitimate channels.   The already slim prospects for a "soft landing" in Syria, with a political transition deal ending the violence, are now closer to complete collapse.

I do not believe that we are heading for the direct American military intervention for which a vocal, if small, band of liberal hawks yearn, however.  Nor should there be one.  No advocate of American military intervention has yet offered any suggestions of how specific actions might actually produce the desired goals given the nature of the fighting. Air strikes and no-fly zones can not tip the balance in a civil war environment fought in densely populated urban areas where the U.S. lacks reliable human intelligence; recall that an air campaign took six months to succeed in Libya under much more favorable conditions.  Safe area and humanitarian corridor proposals remain impractical.  Advocates of military action should not be allowed to dodge the question of the likely escalation to ground forces -- which virtually everyone agrees would be disastrous -- after the alternatives fail. And there is zero political appetite for a military intervention:  it is difficult to miss that every single speaker at the United Nations, including the Arab League and Qatar, explicitly ruled one out.

I expect calls to mount for the provision of weapons to the Free Syrian Army, or for that to simply happen without fanfare. But nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is a panacaea.  Arming the weaker side in a fully-fledged, internationalized civil war is much more likely to produce a painful stalemate than a quick, decisive outcome. Asad's allies will reciprocate with their own support.  That support, along with a military which evidently remains loyal and willing to kill and intensifying sectarian dynamics which could keep fence-sitters with the regime, could keep a civil war going a long time.  Syria would become a regional vortex, 1980s Lebanon on steroids:  a protracted and violent civil war, fueled by arms shipments and covert, proxy interventions by all parties. Does anyone really think this is a good path?

Whatever the outcome of that battle on the ground, Syria under the Asad regime will never be rehabilitated in the region or the international community.   In a statement shortly before the Council vote, President Obama declared: "The Syrian regime's policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse. Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community."  His strong statement, while more than justified, might have been better held until after the vote since it may have fueled suspicions about the objectives of the Arab League initiative. Indeed, Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin blamed the resolution's backers for promoting a strategy aimed at "regime change"   But if the goal of the veto was to keep the goals of international action limited, the result will be the opposite.  The end of the UN option will now make the goal of regime change in Damascus more explicit.

It isn't only the UN which will become less relevant.  The Arab League is also about to become less effective, as the gavel moves from Doha to Baghdad at the end of March.  It isn't just that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is sympathetic to Asad, on the Shi'a side of a new Arab cold war, or deferential to Tehran.  It's that Iraqi politics are themselves an ongoing muddle, leaving little bandwidth for any kind of foreign policy activism.  What's more, Iraq remains something of a pariah in the Arab world, particularly in the Shi'a-phobic quarters of the Gulf Cooperation Council such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (which has already announced that it will boycott the Arab Summit scheduled for Baghdad at the end of March).   Arab divisions will likely become more evident than Arab unity as the crisis escalates, as the GCC pushes its own agenda and the Arab League reverts to its traditional impotence.

Part of my personal frustration lies in the effect that this will have beyond Syria.  The U.S. and its allies will continue to find other ways to try to deal with the Syrian crisis, even without the UN.  But the failure of the UN to act, as Secretary General Ban Ki Moon suggested, harms the institution itself by revealing its inability to act in defense of the Charter's promise.   The next stages, whether military or not (and I expect not), will more resemble the Kosovo and Iraq campaigns which were launched without international legitimacy. This will significantly undermine the prospects that such actions will contribute to the positive development of international norms of atrocity prevention or the more controversial "responsibility to protect."    That is tragic for an administration which has prioritized the UN and, with the exception of its hopeless diplomacy on the Israeli-Palestinian file, has done well with it.

I will have a report coming out soon which lays out some positive policy proposals for how to build more effective international action without war after the UN failure.  Stay tuned.

I agree with this article generally.  I especially think the description of Syria's collapse as Lebanon on steroids is probably accurate.  From what I've read of journalists in Syria apparently the majority of the army aren't trusted by the regime, only a couple of Alawite regiments commanded by Assad family members are seen as loyal enough.  I think when the regime collapses (and it does seem a when to me) we'll  probably see the Alawites retreat to the heartland where they'll be backed by Hezbullah and Iran.  The Saudis are already allegedly funding some of the armed opposition.

It remains difficult to see a path to actually help Syria beyond cries for 'intervention'.  It's been remarkable seeing the Arab League as an active and positive force in the region the past year or so (again the book on Qatar's role in these revolutions will be fascinating) so it's sad that that'll probably dissipate.  Sadly I think one good policy that could be immediately taken is to start a process to help the Turks and Jordanians who will almost certainly be facing a humanitarian disaster