The Sirian conundrum: What shall be done?

Experts say that a military intervention in Siria is not the best plan due to its position and population, different to another African country, Lybia. Although the two rulers of those countries resemble by brutality, Bashad Assad, Sirias ruler, is better prepared to engage in a war. Non intervention has also its drawbacks and one of them is the rising number of victims, 10,000 dead in 13 months. The number of guns and extremists is also rising, and the rebuilding of the country seems to be more unlikely as the time passes. Having a different attitude from the past, the Arab League has taken the lead and asked Kofi Annan, a well-known member of the United Nations, to reach a truce with Mr Assad. The Sirian leader has agreed to cease the fire and let several hundred UN observers in the country, along with foreign correspondents. He has also agreed to free political prisoners and negotiate with his opponents. This peaceful plan could work, even though the chances are slim. Russia, China and Iran have agreed with it, but Assad has already breached some important points. The killings are escaladating again and, as long as the number of observers is not enough, this will continue. A plan B should be prepared, considering that Assad could just be playing for time. Protected areas should be placed along the borders with Turkey and Jordan, to help the refugees, if Mr Assad will continue to breach Mr Annans proposals. In a few weeks, Assads thoughts will be clear and the better plan will be applied. In my view, peace is the best plan. The number of casualties is reduced to a minimum, the country could be reconstructed faster and the economical and political stability could be reached sooner. Firstly, the violence should stop and people in different tribes should try to understand each other and communicate with words, not guns. The populations number would increase, as well as the labor force and the economy would grow. People should be taught and encouraged to take jobs. Schools should be improved and children should be learned to live in peace and harmony. However, they have another mentality and they are convinced they are right. As long as their leader encourage them to fight, the victims number will increase and they will destroy each other, and their economy as well. Secondly, a country where there are rebellions more often than celebrations is a country with no viable roads or buildings or business. Investors are no confident enough to invest here and people live a tough life, the main cause of the violence. The economy and the politics are in the hands of one man, Bashar Assad, who, in my opinion, will not let anyone to take his power, no matter what Russia or UN say. Moreover, there is no economical or political stability because there are no parties with different opinions or large firms which can influence commerce. All is in the hands of one man and people have had enough, but they are not prepared yet to take power. There are different tribes, different points of view and they will fight if they would not reach a common point. They are willing to exterminate an entire tribe just because Assad is part of it, even though it means that they will kill ten percent of the entire population of the country. It seems that they act in

spirit of revenge. Taking into account that Assad has more guns and soldiers than anyone else, who can say that he would not react at revenge with revenge? He is not willing to renounce at his power and people are not willing to renounce and the fight. That is why an intervention from the outside is most needed. However, I do not think that Annans proposal is taken into account as it should be because of the same reason: Assad could not accept to give uphis power. He would react as he consider the best for him, no matter what Russia or China or Iran say. He would steal as much time as he can to prepare himself and his army for further actions. That is why I think peace is the best plan, but it is unreachable. Humanitarian save zones should be established at once at the border to prevent further victims. People who want help should be helped because, as I see this, it is all UN can do now without engaging in a war. Taking into account the recent history with Iraq and Lebanon wars and Mr Assads actions, UN would not interfere without starting a new war. What happened in Libia could not repeat here. Siria is much bigger and with more cultural diversity, so that a quick intervention with minimum casualties is almost impossible. And that is the conundrum: how can Assad leave without a war that decimates his people and affect global economy? What can UN do when they can not do anything, but they also can not stay and watch how people die? Economists have different opinions about how this problem would affect global economy. For example,

In conclusion, the best course of action for the moment should be the establishment of humanitarian safe zones for the refugees at the borders. The number of the UN observers should also be increased to ensure a certain degree of safety for those who have chosen to stay and fight. Russia, China and Iran should put pressure on Assads decisions to make sure that he would not start a civil war. Even though it is almost impossible that he would accept a round table, he would be somehow compelled to understand that no extreme violence is needed. Hopefully, what happened in Liban and Iraq would not happen again and global economy would not suffer.