IPRI REVIEW 3/2012 Pakistans Response to Syrian Crisis

The uprising in Syria began in March 2011. The conflict has entered its twentieth month. Level of violence is worsening with each passing day. Efforts by the UN for a political solution have not yielded any worthwhile result. The conflict has been compounded and complicated by opposing interests of regional and international players. There are blatant violations of international norms by some of the actors through glaring intervention to flare-up what actually began as an internal unrest in Syria. Due to murky situation, Pakistan finds it difficult to take a stance on Syrian crisis. The violence has escalated incrementally and resulted in deaths of approximately 40,000 Syrians. There is also a humanitarian aspect of the crisis in the form of refugees; a candid estimate has it that by New Year eve, there will be around 700,000 Syrian refugees. Most of them are in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. An early end to the conflict is not likely. Syrian opposition remains fragmented. Syrian National Coalition, an umbrella organization for Syrian opposition groups, was formed in November 2012 after concerted efforts by Gulf States and the West. The coalition is now dominated by Muslim Brotherhood. The US, France, Britain, Turkey and Gulf states have recognized the Coalition as the legitimate representative of Syrian people. Diplomacy has failed to resolve the Syrian crisis. The UN Peace Plan failed miserably with the resignation of Kofi Annan. Joint efforts are underway by the Arab League and the UN to find a solution. The conflict has drawn regional and international powers into the arena; cross-purposes interests pursued by regional and international players are likely to block any institutionalized framework for an equitable solution.

In order to understand the complexity of the situation, it is essential that interests of various regional and international powers are analyzed. Syria is Irans strong ally. Their bilateral ties are built not only on religio-sectarian but they also encompass geo-strategic dimensions. A forced regime change in Syria means a great loss for Iran. Very intimate ties existed between the leaders of the two countries prior to the uprising. Initially Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan believed that he could convince Assad to undertake reforms. But he was disappointed. Despite provocative incidents of border skirmishes, Turkey does not want the tensions to escalate. It is cautious as it does not want to be on hostile terms with Iran, Iraq and Russia. Israel faces a dilemma. Syria weekend through civil war suits it strategically. However the government that could emerge either after elections, or through a forced regime change, is likely to be more nationalistic and more anti-Israel than the incumbent dispensation. Israel does not want the Assad regime to be toppled down in a disorderly manner, creating a civil war just across its border. Israel would favour an alternative leadership in Syria, if it is certain that it wont be hostile to Israel. Saudi Arabia wants to contain the Shiite arc that begins from Iran, going from Syria into Lebanon-Hezbollah, and then into Hamas in Gaza, also extending into Bahrain and Yemen. Ousting Assad means curtailing Iran. Saudi Arabia is supporting the opposition in Syria. Lately Qatar has emerged as a very active player and is rallying Arab and international support against Assad. It also supports Syrian opposition. Qatar and Saudi Arabia support different opposition groups, Qatar favours Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia supports Salaafi elements. Lebanon remains deeply divided over Syrian issue along pro-Syrian factions notably Hezbollah and anti-Syrian factions. China and Russia both have vetoed all Security Council attempts to condemn Assad regime. The UN military intervention could not come mainly due to Russian and
2

Chinese opposition. Their stance has been shaped by principled opposition to interference in internal affairs of a country. Having learnt their lessons from misinterpretation and mis-use of UNSC resolutions 1973 and 1979 in Libya, Russia and China no longer want the UN to be used by America led allies for fulfilling their agenda in Syria. Russia and Syria have traditionally been strategic partners; Russia is likely to stand alongside the Assad regime till end. The US and its traditional allies are quietly working for shaping an Israel-pliant Middle East. Initially the US and EU imposed sanctions and did not show an appetite for a military intervention. NATO repeated it time and again that an intervention on a Libyan pattern will not be coming. A military intervention may or may not come. It will not come if the US is able to achieve its objectives otherwise. The US is openly funding the Syrian opposition and sharing intelligence with its combative component.

Pakistan followed a wait and see policy. A belated response came from Pakistan in August 2012, in a meeting called by Iran to show support for Syrian regime. The conference was attended by representatives from Russia, China, Iraq, Indonesia, India, Jordan, Oman, Tunisia, Palestine, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Ecuador, Belarus, Mauritania, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Nicaragua, Cuba and Benin. Pakistan has opposed any coercive measures to resolve the crisis in Syria and wants a peaceful resolution. In a Security Council meeting in September 2012, it condemned use of force by all sides and said that it wants a political settlement through an allinclusive dialogue. However Pakistan believes that the Syrian Government has a responsibility towards its people for their safety and security. Pakistans response is based on its long-standing stance on respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of any country. Pakistans response is cautious. It does not favour any side. However, if the issue is not resolved through talks, it will be extremely difficult for Pakistan to maintain its stance. Conflict is developing at various levels. It is extremely difficult for Pakistan to formulate a stance as it has friendly
3

countries on both sides. No support should be extended to Syrian rebels as Pakistan would not like any country to support insurgents in Baluchistan. The stance taken by China and Russia in UN is a good sign as the UN must not be used by certain powers. Their stance favours developing countries. Pakistan should play an active role, through the OIC, for a durable political solution of the conflict.

Pakistan should remain neutral vis--vis the Syrian government and the political resistance. Pakistan should support UN effort provided it does not include a military intervention and a forced regime change. Pakistan should pursue a UN mandated cease fire and UN supervised elections in Syria. Pakistan should not sympathize with the rebels as it would set a self-damaging precedent. Pakistan should use its good offices to influence the incumbent regime for a prudent policy leading to initiation of a political process. Pakistan should not just sit on the fence, it should play an active role form the OIC platform towards resolution of conflict. Pakistan should categorically oppose any sort of military intervention in Syria as it would destabilize the whole region.

Syrian crisis is complex and demands caution. Conflict is likely to linger along. Regime will be able to hold-on for quite some time provided there is no active external military intervention in support of insurgency. Chances of any neighbouring country jumping into the fray militarily are rather remote. Pakistan should maintain a neutral stance but at the same time it should not display an attitude of indifference; it ought to pay an active role towards resolution of the conflict. The OIC and Arab League need to come out of slumber and take charge; they must realize that era of Chapter 7 mandated UNSC intervention is over, at least for quite some time.