The UN Security Council’s unanimous support for a statement backing a peace plan for Syria drawn up by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan may signify an important change in the way the international community deals with the year-long uprising in the Middle East country.
The six-point Annan plan calls for a ceasefire – specifically a daily two-hour humanitarian pause – political dialogue involving both the Syrian government and opponents to its rule, secure humanitarian access, the release of people detained during a crackdown on protests and a removal of restrictions on the freedom of movement of journalists.
It also threatens further steps if the Syrian government, which is led by President Bashar Assad, fails to comply.
Gaining the support of permanent UNSC members Russia and China was the main challenge, and the statement was actually watered down before their approval. A section requiring a review of progress made in seven days – with the threat of further measures – was removed by France to ensure their approval.
The UN estimates that over 8,000 people were killed over the past year as, inspired by the Arab Spring revolts elsewhere, Syrians took part in protests which led to a bloody crackdown by the regime.
But so far, both Russia and China vetoed UNSC resolutions which merely condemn the Syrian regime, scuppering any chances for the international community to intervene. A year ago, their abstention in a resolution authorising limited intervention in Libya made it – and, as a result, the revolution – possible, but the two countries were subsequently critical of what had occurred.
Russia has long-standing friendly relations with Syria, and has continued to supply weapons to the country after the uprising. Syria also houses Russia’s only naval base outside of the former Soviet Union. But recent statements by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that Russia’s patience with the regime is wearing thin.
Last week, he told the Russian parliament that the Syrian government was implementing reforms too slowly, and in a televised interview he observed that Syrian troops were using disproportionate force and that Moscow disagreed with the Syrian leadership.
China, meanwhile, is actively involved in a number of Syrian industries, including oil production.
The two countries’ decision to vote along with the rest of the UNSC may also be due to international pressure, as their stance had inevitably led to accusations that they were abetting violent acts.
But what the Annan plan will lead to remains to be seen. Ultimately, no plan will be successful unless Dr Assad and his government accept reforms which will grant adequate space to political opponents and possibly pave the way for their ouster – and unless they actually stick to their promises.
Dr Assad is just 46, and possibly perceives a long tenure ahead of him. He is thus far younger than Egypt and Tunisia’s former despots, who may have been more willing to step down as a result.
If he believes that he can ride out the present uprising – and if he believes that foreign intervention will be limited – Dr Assad may strive to hold on to power.
Moreover, military intervention in Syria would be a more difficult prospect than the one which took place in Libya. The country’s military is far larger and better equipped, since perceived threats from Israel and western countries have kept the government on its toes.
But on the other hand, if the regime perceives the tide turning against it internationally, and if its opponents continue the fight, it may very well bow down to the inevitable. One can only hope that present efforts, as minor as they may seem, usher it in that direction.