In what many consider the most serious spillover of the Syrian conflict into a neighbouring country (others grant that honour to the car explosion that took place in Beirut last year), approximately 40 Syrian soldiers who were escaping from rebel attacks and crossed the border with Iraq and were accompanied by Iraqi soldiers were killed by unidentified gunmen (some blame Al-Qaeda, there's no evidence to that) in the Iraqi province of Anbar (a Western territory with, coincidentally, a Sunni majority and also epicenter of the recent unrest). Even though the authorities claim they've not picked sides, Prime Minister's Maliki's covert support of Assad's regime has been denounced by several observers. You simply cannot back a dictator who has already massacred more than 70,000 people, wounded much more and chased away hundreds of thousands, even if you act out of strategic reckoning, and expect your population to stay quiet.
Visiting Scholar for the Carnegie Middle East Center´s Sami Moubayed has got it all right. His magnificent article Brahimi won´t risk his reputation in vain highlights the poignant truth about of one of the most serious mistakes the international community (and particularly both the UN and the League of Arab States) has made since the breaking out of the conflict: choosing the wrong mediator. And taking into account the many many (many) things at stake, it really shocks me why nearly nobody stressed that fact earlier. Appointing an special envoy to show unity/consensus and be able to speak to Assad? Great idea. Not bearing in mind what was exactly needed? Failure. Even though he will have to face several setbacks, let´s only hope Brahimi´s appointment somehow clears the path of the Syrian mess... His advantages, as presented by Moubayed: He is "the man who helped end Lebanon’s civil war, who managed Iraq’s troubled post-Saddam elections, and propped up Hamid Karza...

Comments
Post a Comment