Has the Arab Spring Sprung? Part III: Syria

In this post, (the third and final in an exciting three part series), I wish to discuss the Syrian theatre of the Arab Spring.  This is, in my view, the most complicated and frustrating conflict to come about as a result of the Arab Spring movement. In addition to a bloody civil war waged along ethnic and religious fault lines, the conflict in Syria has, in many ways, become a battleground for foreign influence.  Because of these facts, it may not make sense to attempt to understand this conflict solely through the narrow lens of the Arab Spring. Yet the current situation has remained connected to regional upheavals since the beginning of Arab Spring inspired protests in May, 2011, and therefore ought to be considered within this context.

Major protests in Syria began after the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, arrested and allegedly tortured teenagers who had painted revolutionary slogans on the walls of their school.  When these protests were met with lethal force, many Syrians began to demand the overthrow of President Assad.  As the government continued its brutal crackdown on protesters, many military leaders began to defect from the Assad regime to join the opposition.  This led to the formation of the Free Syrian Army, a military group committed to the overthrow of the President Assad.

The prevalence of human rights abuses in Syria has prompted the UN to get involved, with former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan brokering a cease-fire agreement between the rebels and government forces.  This agreement was widely ignored by fighters on both sides of the conflict, and has generally been regarded as a failure.  Additionally, Western members of the UN Security Council have called for resolutions condemning the Assad regime, but these have been consistently rejected by Russia, a Syrian ally, as well as by China. 

Events in Syria are complicated by the country’s ethnic and cultural makeup.  President Assad is himself a member of a minority religious group, the Alawites, who make up roughly 10% of the Syrian population.  Syrian Alawites, along with other minority groups including Syrian Christians, generally support Assad and have expressed fear at what might happen to them should the majority Sunni Muslims take power.  This fear is echoed by many analysts, and serves to complicate the Syrian situation further.  Unlike many other Arab Spring conflicts, there is a real danger that violence in Syria may destabilize other countries in the region, if the ethnic violence present in Syria were to spread to neighbouring countries.  Realizing this, the UN human rights chief has recently issued a statement calling for an end to militarization in the region and condemning both sides for severe human rights violations.  The UN has also called on several countries, particularly Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, to prevent further militarization of the conflict by halting the provision of weapons to both the Assad government and the Free Syrian Army.

The Arab Spring has come a long way since the largely peaceful and effective protests in Tunisia and Egypt.  Now, Arab Spring inspired violence threatens to plunge an entire region into conflict along ethnic fault lines.  Peace plans brokered by regional authorities have largely been ignored, and reports of atrocities committed by both sides of the conflict continue to circulate.  It is clear that further militarization in the region will only exacerbate current problems, yet it seems that many diplomatic channels have been exhausted.  Does this mean that the only way forward is to allow the conflict in Syria to work itself out, hoping that it does not spread across the region?  If not, what other options are available?  Also, given the current situation of many Arab Spring countries, what can we say about the success of the Arab Spring.  Has it really made a positive difference in the Middle East?

Let me know what you think.

Dan