Wednesday 27 June 2012

Evidence gathered by UN investigators in Syria shows human rights violations, including executions “on an alarming scale”, according to a new report on a conflict that is spiralling into “deeper and more destructive violence” and in which sectarian motives now predominate.

Against a background of escalating bloodshed and global concern, with gunmen killing seven on Wednesday at a pro-regime TV station near Damascus, the foreign ministers of the world’s leading powers have been invited to meet in Geneva on Saturday in a desperate attempt to agree a political exit from the impasse.

On Tuesday, president Bashar al-Assad ratcheted up his own language by describing the crisis as “a real war” and pledged to do everything necessary to prevail. Assad had previously always blamed the uprising on “armed terrorist gangs” backed by the west and Arab countries.

Underlining the gravity of the situation, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights described the last week as the bloodiest yet in the 16-month uprising. Observatory director Rami Abdul-Rahman said 916 people had been killed from 20 to 26 June. On Tuesday alone the reported death toll was 113, though these figures cannot be independently verified. Tank fire was reported from al-Qusair near Homs. Other attacks by government forces were reported on Wednesday in Deraa and Zamalka.

Kofi Annan, Syria envoy for the UN and the Arab League, said he had invited the five permanent members of the UN security council with Turkey and three Arab states to the Geneva conference, but there was no mention of Iran. Its presence was opposed by the US and UK, which warned they would not attend if Iran did.

Saudi Arabia, financing the fighters of the Syria Free Army, was also conspicuously left off the guest list to balance the absence of the Iranians, diplomats said.

The novelty of this event will be participation by Russia and China, which have vetoed action against Assad at the UN and shunned the western-Arab Friends of Syria grouping on the grounds that it is working against the Assad regime.

It is unclear, however, whether Moscow will accept the western view that Assad must step aside in favour of a transitional national unity government. Russia has always insisted it would not countenance regime change in Damascus. Britain’s foreign secretary, Wiliam Hague, said the meeting “must agree principles for a political transition.” Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said she hoped it could be a “turning point.”

If it is not, said officials in Washington and London, there will be renewed pressure to return to the security council to consider punitive measures.

Wednesday’s bomb and gun assault on al-Ikhbariya TV, south of the capital, was seen as further evidence of bolder tactics by armed anti-Assad rebels. It followed an opposition attack on the elite Republican Guard on the outskirts of Damascus on Tuesday. Al-Ikbhariya is privately owned but has been a loyal mouthpiece for the regime. The attack was condemned by the Syrian government and by journalists and activists. Amnesty International said:”Even a media organisation engaged in propaganda is still a civilian object, so it and those working for it must never be deliberately targeted.”

Annan’s deputy, Jean-Marie Guehenno, told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that violence across the country now matched or surpassed levels seen before the start of the notional ceasefire on 12 April. “Time is running out,” he warned. “Syria is spiralling into deeper and more destructive violence.”

Annan said in a statement that the new Action Group for Syria would identify steps and measures to secure full implementation of his failing six-point plan, including “an immediate cessation of violence in all its forms.” It should, he added “also agree on guidelines and principles for a Syrian-led political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people; and agree on actions that will make these objectives a reality on the ground.”

Investigators for the UN Human Rights Council reported that they were unable to determine who carried out a massacre of more than 100 people in Houla near Hama in May — an event which galvanised international attention — but it said that “forces loyal to the government may have been responsible for many of the deaths.”

“As a result of the reported flow of new weapons and ammunitions both to the government forces and to the anti-government armed groups, the situation risks becoming more aggravated in the coming months,” said the report’s author, Paulo Pinheiro.

Syria’s representative to the council, Faisal al-Hamwi, claimed there was a “global conspiracy” against Syria.

Russian diplomat Vassily Nebenzia said rebels were carrying out daily attacks on infrastructure and killing civilians. “Gunmen have been carrying out terrorist acts on Syrian cities. Such activities … are being fed with money and weapons from abroad,” he said.

The US ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said: “The evidence is incontrovertible. The Assad regime is waging a brutal campaign against the Syrian people, characterised by aerial bombardment, mass killings, rape and other atrocities.”

Turkey learns who its real friends are – so much for ‘strategic realignment’

The Syrian crisis has exposed the folly and weakness of Ankara’s attempts to become a regional superpower

Funny how times change. When the Bush administration sought permission to transit its Iraq invasion troops through Turkish territory in early 2003, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ankara’s soon-to-be installed prime minister and his Justice and Development party (AKP) bluntly refused. Their bold defiance of America’s will won plaudits around the Arab world, not least from Syria.

With President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, not that of Saddam Hussein, now viewed in Ankara as a dangerous enemy, and with the prospect of a bilateral or regional conflict inching closer following Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish military plane, Erdogan has swiftly changed his tune. Unwilling to take on Assad by himself, Erdogan turned to the US and Nato for support this week. So much for Turkey’s much discussed “strategic realignment”.

Turkish commentators have stressed, with unconvincing vehemence, that despite eschewing a direct military response and seeking help from the western powers instead, Erdogan has not “lost face”. Mehmet Ali Birand, writing in Hurriyet, said the prime minister’s cautious reaction befitted a “serious” state. “Now it is Syria who should be thinking ahead because from now on life will be more difficult … Up to now, a verbal dispute was being experienced. Now it is two enemy nations openly confronting each other.”

But Erdogan’s vow to target Syrian military formations should they approach their shared border, support opposition forces “at any cost”, and do all he can to bring down the Assad dynasty, barely disguises the weakness of Turkey’s position. Ankara’s twin priorities are both domestic in nature: modernisation and economic growth. Turkey does not want, and cannot afford, a war along its southern border that would jeopardise these aims, further destabilise the Kurdish regions, and seriously compromise its broader regional interests. Assad, presumably, knows this well.

This inherent Turkish weakness was apparent before the Syrian uprising began last year. And it has been aggravated by a string of grave miscalculations by Turkey’s foreign policy triumvirate – Erdogan, the foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and the president, Abdullah Gul – that have left the country largely unprepared to deal with recent events, not least the fall-out from the Arab spring.

Of the three, Davutoglu is the brains. A former professor of international relations dubbed the “Turkish Kissinger” (the nickname is intended as a compliment), Davutoglu coined the AKP’s trademark policy of “zero problems with neighbours”. In short, Turkey would strengthen its ties with the Arab countries it formerly colonised, act as a good faith conduit to Iran, and maintain a pragmatically positive relationship with Israel. In theory, all this would strengthen Turkey’s position as a burgeoning regional power and a hub where the west met the near east.

Some called the policy re-Ottomanisation. And for a while it seemed to be working, as Davutoglu argued in a Guardian interview in 2010. Regarding Syria in particular, old arguments about shared water resources, the disputed border province of Hatay, and Syria’s support for anti-Turkish Kurdish militants were set aside. Instead, in 2004, a free trade agreement was signed, visa-free travel was proposed, Gul and Erdogan made high-profile visits, and in 2009 the two countries held joint military exercises. Syrian commanders were invited to inspect Turkish border defences. This open-handedness appears unfortunate now.

So, too, does much else pertaining to Davutoglu’s self-interested, blind-eye good-neighbourliness. Relations with Israel went predictably pear-shaped after it shot up a pro-Palestinian freedom flotilla. Post-occupation Iraq under Nouri al-Maliki appears to prefer Tehran’s embrace to Ankara’s. Iran’s nuclear programmers have proven wholly unappreciative of Turkish mediation efforts. And the Kurdish question is as unanswered as ever, witness last week’s Turkish air raids inside northern Iraq – another reminder of Ankara’s ongoing ineffectuality.

Maybe Egypt, now under Muslim Brotherhood management, will have something to learn from Erdogan’s softly softly Islamist approach to Turkey’s secular, Ataturkist legacy. Chances are, not.

The Syrian crisis gives Turkey’s leaders an opportunity to reorient their country’s outlook, on the sounder basis of knowing who your real friends are, not who they might be. The US and Britain fall firmly into the first camp and so do most of the European Nato powers, notwithstanding the anti-Turkish sentiment encouraged by the unlamented Nicolas Sarkozy and some German soulmates. Russia is definitely no friend to Turkey, no more than will be Iran if push comes to bloody shove in Syria.

If growing bands of Syrian refugee “guests” and defectors, unpredictable military provocations, the threat to Lebanon, a ruined commerce and the Damascus regime’s generally reckless behaviour are not enough to convince Turkey’s leaders where the hope of safety best lies, then perhaps they should focus on one particular issue: Syria’s large arsenal of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

The Christian Science Monitor highlighted the danger this week: “As Syria slides into ever worsening violence and parts of the country begin to slip out of control of the state, Syria’s chemical and biological weapons arsenal, air defence systems, and ballistic missiles could be up for grabs – a potential bonanza for radical militant groups and a massive challenge for the west in attempting to check proliferation.

“Hard data on Syria’s chemical and biological warfare capabilities is scarce, but the country is believed to have one of the largest chemical agents stockpiles in the world, including VX and Sarin nerve agents. It also has an impressive number of surface-to-surface missiles, such as Scud-Ds which can be fitted with chemical warheads, and modern Russian anti-aircraft missile batteries, including portable shoulder-fired systems.”

The prospect that some of these weapons might be used by a desperate regime bent on survival, or may fall into the hands of terrorist groups, however defined, is a daunting one. The ensuing chaos could easily trump what has happened in Libya and the Sahel after the fall of Gaddafi. It poses a potentially existential threat to Turkey and other neighbours. Hopefully, Erdogan and chums now fully understand this.

…