Along with Russia, China too has shown the world that it still talks to the Syrian government. This attitude has naturally been analyzed together with Russia’s and China’s recent veto against the international sanctions in the UN Security Council and presented as supplementary proof that both countries support the Syrian regime.
It is perhaps an exaggeration to claim that China and Russia are totally happy with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government and methods or that they have a common plan to resolve the ongoing crisis. It is even too early to say that these two countries are strong allies, as even concerning Syria they have different expectations.
Nevertheless, Russia and China have a common concern: If the Baath regime keeps acting the way it has acted in recent months, political and economic control of Syria will slowly be seized by the West. The members of the UN Security Council, except China and Russia, and NATO members (in other words, the EU-US axis) are already talking about opening humanitarian corridors and establishing buffer zones. This is nothing but a “soft intervention” and a way of declaring to Russia and China: “Do whatever you like, but we’ll figure out a way to intervene somehow.”
The situation in Syria can’t go on like this forever. Nevertheless, it is not sure for now what kind of regime will replace the current one. There will most likely be a more representative, or at least a less repressive, government; but it may still choose Russia and Iran as its preferential partners. However, if the new Syria turns its back on Russia and Iran, Syria will become a country more or less like Egypt, and China will be left with Iran as its only ally in the Middle East, and Russia will lose one of its advanced posts.
The Russian and Chinese envoys are not trying to encourage Assad to resist; neither do they support his brutal repression. Their aim is to explain to him that his mistakes will make Russia, China and Iran lose Syria. Nevertheless, the situation is no longer manageable in Syria, and a new constitution or cosmetic reforms are no longer enough to assure the regime’s survival. If a new constitution guarantees free and fair elections in a truly multi-party system, then the Sunni majority will accede to power; if the constitution does not guarantee a free political system, then the civil war will continue and in the end the Sunni majority will still come to power.
The Syrian regime’s dilemma puts the entire world’s stability in jeopardy, and there are, unfortunately, only two ways out: a war between Israel and Iran (which will necessitate US and Russia picking their sides, with China mediating) or simultaneous civil wars in various Middle Eastern countries. The potential for civil war exists already in Iraq and Lebanon; Palestine, too, can be mentioned in this context. This potential is comparatively smaller in Turkey and Iran, which pushes them to act together against ethnic and religious-based civil wars in the region.
Still, Ankara and Tehran have different roadmaps for Syria in their minds. Iran seeks to keep Syria in the Russian sphere of influence, while Turkey is trying to bring this country closer to the Western powers. At the same time, Assad is trying to extend the fire, hoping to gain time.
All the scenarios at hand are very risky. That is why the great powers no longer discuss the best way out but the less risky one. Under the current circumstances, an inter-state war is highly dangerous at the beginning, but once it ends, the outcome may be manageable. However, civil wars, although they seem less risky and more manageable at first, can drag on and create unexpected results.
From now on, no one will try to convince Assad of anything — his days are numbered. Today’s discussion is about who is going to intervene and how.
