You are here:   Bashar al-Assad > It's Too Late To Stop Syria Disintegrating
 

Looking at the Middle East, there is not much in terms of borders that makes sense — they neither reflect national divisions, nor religious ones. They are lines in the sand — the legacy of a rapacious colonial era kept together after the colonial powers left by even more rapacious dictators.

The only exception is Israel — but that is another story, and its success rests with the secrets of the modern nation state, where democracy roughly coincides with ethnicity. Everywhere else, stability was bought at the price of oppression — which made stability fragile and ultimately untenable — or ethnic cleansing. Cyprus is stable today because the warring tribes have been forcibly separated, both physically and politically. Lebanon hangs by a thread, with everyone ready to retreat to the hills and pull out the guns at a moment's notice. Iraq could explode again soon: its ethnic mosaic cannot be easily disentangled, but then again, one could have said the same of Yugoslavia in the 1980s.

Stability returns to such places after the grim harvest of ethnic hatred leaves no room for survivors to return to their former homes.

Could this tide be stemmed in Syria?

Early on in the crisis, it could have been, at a high price, had we had a dog in the fight, or one that we wanted to claim as our own. But the West decided, as in the former Yugoslavia for three long years, to sit this one out. The new order will thus not be created by idealists intervening. Ethnic cleansing will eventually draw the new borders as Syria falls apart.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
moderateGuy
March 3rd, 2013
2:03 AM
"Could this tide be stemmed in Syria?" A better question is "should it be?" The unspeakable violence and ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia happened because rather than understanding that multiple diverse ethnic people were forced into "co-existence" and oppression by the dominant ethnicity, and helping achieve a more peaceful separation; the West, following idiotic neo-colonial recipes, insisted that the different ethnic people remain forced into single sovereign entities.

Mladen
March 3rd, 2013
12:03 AM
If Sunni are ruling group in Syria, trying to impose Salafism to everybody else, situations have been somewhat similar to Milosevic's intended model of Yugoslavia. So, main difference is that Sunni don't have superiority in amount of weapons. But, in situations like this, largest ethnic group can go to majorisation or even genocide, while smaller ones cannot, if they intend to keep priviledge. Therefore, installing Sunni dictator would be very bad idea and Salafist theocracy would be disaster. However, rebels rejected elections from Day One, since democratic Syria would be writing on the wall for their paymasters, all feudal theocracies. And what about Bosnia? Well relations among people are much better then relations among politicians, but political system is constructed to favour hardliners, not consensus builders. That is lesson which should be studied in Syria, but also Libya and Iraq.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.