The Syrian cauldron

At international conferences it's not the message alone but the level of participation that conveys the position of a participating state on the issue at the table. At the conference in Tehran recently hosted by Iran on the civil war in Syria, which is fast degenerating into a bloody sectarian showdown between government's Alawite-dominated troops and the Sunni Muslim majority, Pakistan was represented by Foreign Minister Khar along with her counterparts from Iraq and Zimbabwe. The rest at the table, including China and Russia, were represented by ambassadors and concerned officials. And it's here at the Tehran moot that Pakistan spoke its mind with a measure of clarity on the Syrian crisis for the first time, and as reported by a section of national media, it appears Pakistan is supportive of the Syrian government. Is it diplomatically correct our government has taken on the Syrian situation; we would refrain from offering our comment? But if our Foreign Office's meandering approach to the Libyan imbroglio is any guide, one may say 'perhaps not'. Of course, she stoutly opposed 'foreign intervention as it would further confound an already complex situation'. But who are being accused by Tehran and President Assad of 'foreign intervention', she knew it well. There is no denying the fact that there is foreign intervention: both from the anti-Assad and pro-Assad camps, and there are also clear signs that the Syrian turmoil is bound to spill across the entire region, turning Syrian unrest into a much wider conflict. Khar is absolutely right in saying that "As Syria bleeds; we must eschew the temptation of taking sides". Here, she was expected to seek a kind of clarification, albeit informal, particularly from Syria, Iraq and Iran, about almost 100 deaths due to bombings in nearly two dozen towns in one single day in Iraq which the Nuri al-Maliki government characterised as a clear spillover of sectarian violence from neighbouring Syria. This question was all the more important mainly because of the fact that July 23, 2012 attacks in particular have dangerously and expectedly added a new wrinkle to the troubled relationship between Iraqi government and Syrian opposition. The Syrian opposition has repeatedly accused al-Maliki of allowing weapons to pass from Iran to support fledgling government of Assad. Whatever side that Pakistan chooses to take as the Syrian crisis tends to worsen, it's going to severely test its diplomatic skills also. And that test is already at hand. On August 14, President Zardari is expected to attend the OIC summit invited by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The host nation, Saudi Arabia, is one of the prime targets of the Assad regime's foreign intervention accusation, as it is accused by Damascus of helping the rebel forces along with Qatar, the UAE and all other Arab Gulf states and Turkey. Our Foreign Office will, therefore, not be resuming or maintaining an upright position if it seeks to initiate a debate over whether all those nations that have been accused by Assad of supporting opposition forces should clarify their positions vis-à-vis Syria unrest. Let our Foreign Office stay committed to the Nicolson vintage diplomacy. Not only are those dealing with contentious issues such as Syria required to demonstrate the attributes of veracity, calm, precision, loyalty, good character and modesty, they must employ all available clichés while reacting to international developments. But the people here embrace a very clear perspective on the evolving situation in Syria. They have run out of patience with tyrannical Assad regime and its unremitting brutal rule lasting all these years and decades. President Bashar al-Assad believes extreme brutalities worked for the Assad dynasty in the past and he is trying his hand at it now. Majority of Syrian population is not with him, as he holds onto power with the help of a mafia and is ever ready to spill blood to keep him in power. Being a democratic polity Pakistan has to be quite circumspect in offering unstilted support to a despot. Similar misperception about Qadhafi's unsuccessful struggle aimed at clinging to power had lent ambivalence to Pakistan's position. But how easily he made his departure from the scene we know also. We have no moral and ethical compulsions to stay committed to the Syrian tyrant. And as for the political and diplomatic considerations a peep into the line-up of international forces for and against him would help the Foreign Office map out a pragmatic approach towards the Syrian crisis. The UN-mandated Kofi Annan six point peace plan was probably the best offer President al-Assad had, but he blew it off his palm and returned to his blood-spilling game plan. Given this backdrop Pakistan needs to shun side-taking as it is not practicable. But doesn't mean we have to uphold al-Assad's claim to remain in power or show complacency over his brutalities. Our basic concerns should be the violation of human rights, blatant disregard of human values and rampant violation of human rights and as to what should be the post-President al-Assad Syria. The Foreign Office must not overlook the stark ground realities that remind it - clearly and unambiguously - that its friends in the Arab Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia, and beyond are opposed to the civilian casualties in this Arab country outside the Arabian Peninsula for a variety of reasons. Although, Russia has also been stoutly supporting Assad, China's backing to this regime is owing to some different reasons. Pakistan also has its own reasons - plausible and legitimate - to put its weight behind all those nations that seek to bring to an end the ongoing massive bloodshed in Syria regardless of Assad's fate.