Annan’s Syria plan is the only game in town

They called on their governments to do whatever it takes to stop the massacres, if necessary to intervene militarily. Also in this newspaper, respected colleagues have made the argument in favor of armed intervention. They do not believe that any other option will be effective and from the beginning did not have any faith in the present mission of the UN and the Arab League led by Kofi Annan. Some of the skeptics even went as far as claiming that the proposed cease-fire only played into the hands of the Syrian dictatorship. Besides, many of the Annan plan opponents thought it would never work anyway.

Let me explain why I strongly disagree with those who claim that military intervention in Syria is the only way to stop the killing. Of course, I fully understand the frustration with the Russian and Chinese refusal to back tougher UN resolutions. And yes, I experience the same moral dilemma of being a witness to horrific events and not being able to stop them immediately. On previous occasions like in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya I was in favor of armed intervention. Still, in this particular case, I am convinced that diplomacy is the only way to prevent further bloodshed.

In a blog for the Middle East Channel and Foreign Policy magazine, Michael Wahid Hanna, a fellow and program officer at the Century Foundation, listed all the arguments in favor of continued diplomatic action. Like Hanna I realize that the present plan might fail. At the time of writing, the Syrian army did stop most of its hostilities but has not redeployed its troops and heavy weapons from population centers. The situation in all contested cities is still extremely fragile, and even small incidents could spark a new round of fighting. There is talk about sending UN observers to Syria shortly, but how quickly a full-blown mission could be in place is unclear. There is no guarantee that this mission will be able to do better than the Arab League one that failed miserably a few months ago.

Despite all these uncertainties, Hanna argues that this kind of diplomacy is the only way forward simply because there are no alternatives. Firstly, no country or alliance is willing to deploy troops in Syria. Suggesting otherwise is creating illusions among the Syrian opposition and its supporters. Secondly, such an unlikely intervention would most probably lead to more civilian casualties. The Assad regime will desperately fight for its survival and will be supported by Russia, Iran and Iraq and a substantial part of the Syrian population that deeply fears the post-Assad era. The result will be a civil war in which a disorganized and fragmented opposition backed by Arab Sunni countries is in no position to stop revenge killings along sectarian lines. It would be the worst-case scenario for Syria.

Hanna also does not believe that despite all the sharpened rhetoric, Turkey will opt for unilateral military action in Syria. I sincerely hope he is right. Personally, I think that last week’s reference by Prime Minister Recp Tayyip Erdoğan to Article 5 of the NATO treaty that considers an attack on one NATO member an attack on all, was a mistake. Yes, Syrian soldiers fired into Turkish territory, and that should be condemned. But to invoke the possibility of a NATO military response was overdoing things. It kept the illusion alive that NATO would be willing to intervene one day, which it definitively is not. On top of that, it also suggested that the Turkish government no longer really believes in diplomatic solutions and is preparing for military action, which it should not for the reasons mentioned above.

The Turkish opposition parties reacted strongly to the government’s warmongering. Some of their remarks were to the point. Why has there been no proper debate in Parliament on Turkey’s policy regarding Syria? Why doesn’t the government use its supposed good relations with Iran and Russia to talk them into a more constructive attitude towards the UN/Arab League initiative and more forceful pressure on Assad to stick to his promise to implement all six points of the Annan plan?

My advice to the Turkish government: Stop talking war with Syria and start making the Annan plan work because it is the only game in town.