Intervention

Heiko Wimmen is a political scientist and a Middle East expert with the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs. He's currently coordinating a project on "Arab Elites and Social Mobilization." Before joining the institute, he was deputy director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation's Middle East Bureau in Beirut, Lebanon.

DW: Syria's President Bashar al-Assad says he would not let UN peacekeepers enter the country. But would the UN even want to deploy peacekeepers to Syria, considering they would risk getting drawn into a very messy conflict?

Heiko Wimmen: If the Arab League wants to reinstitute the monitoring mission under the condition that other countries contribute to it, the international community would not turn them down. If Syria accepted a mission like this, it would be impossible to decline.

What other options are there besides another monitoring mission?

One possibility would be to put up so called safe havens. But we have seen in the past that these safe havens can become death traps, as they did in Srebrenica. So that would have to be considered very carefully. Then again, deciding not to make use of one's military force might also turn out to be a big mistake which the international community would then have to live with.

What about an international military intervention at this point?

I don't expect that to happen. Yes, there are statements from the US and from France that seem to indicate a propensity to intervene. But in the fall, presidential elections take place in the US, so I don't see US president Barack Obama eager to engage in any military adventures.

The situation in Syria is different from the one in Libya and would require much stronger military engagement. In Syria, there are no territories that have been freed, and there are no army units that have defected with all their control and command structures in place. So it wouldn't suffice to - as in Libya - provide covering fire, as it were. It would be necessary to deploy US troops. Or Turkey would have to be encouraged to intervene. But I don't think Turkey will be very keen to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for those who don't dare to intervene themselves. So at this point I think the idea of a military intervention is quite absurd.

What's Israel's position on the situation in Syria?

Israel has been reluctant to comment on events in Syria. Israelis fear that the Muslim Brotherhood could come to power in Syria, so they are very suspicious of the rebellion and its chances of success.

Interestingly, those people in the US foreign policy community concerned about Israel's interests are not pushing for an intervention. And as long as they don't do that, it will be really difficult for Obama to move toward an intervention. Of course it is not just humanitarian concerns that come into play, but election tactics as well. Obama has been repeatedly criticized for not taking Israel's interests into enough consideration. And as far as Israel is concerned, Iran is a much more pressing problem than Syria is.

Is it possible to to exert any influence on Russia and China?

Yes, I'm sure that's possible. I think Russia is not keen on taking all the blame for not acting on Syria. I also think the Russians are being criticized too severely. After all, the problem would not have been solved either had Russia abstained in the UN Security Council vote. The veto from Russia and China of course makes it easy to put all the blame in these two countries, with all the others going 'well we'll do something if only the Russians and the Chinese would let us.'

So what can be done with regard to Russia?

One can try to influence Russia. Parts of the Syrian opposition are already trying to do that. And in doing so, they should make it clear that they accept Russia's strategic interests in the region, and that they are aware of Russia's concerns as to who will take over power should the Assad regime be ousted. Maybe some of the rebels even share these concerns. And yet they will have to convince the Russians that Assad has to go.

That may even be in Russia's interests. If an elected government ever takes over in Syria, and everybody only remembers that Russia supported the dictator until the very last moment, Russia would lose much of its strategic influence in Syria. And I do think that's a thought that has occured to the Russian government, too. If Moscow gets the impression that it's pro-Assad strategy is not playing out, it might actually reconsider.

Arming the opposition and the rebels could lead to a civil war - what other options does the international community have?

The opposition and the Free Syrian Army want weapons, they are literally crying out for weapons. And while that is understandable, it doesn't mean it would be smart to supply them with weapons. It will take some careful thinking how that would be achieved strategically. The Free Syrian Army is not able to move against the army in an open battle. So the Free Syrian Army is a source of disruption for the regime, and their attacks undermine morale - but not more. And I don't think that would change much by supplying them with weapons.

So how can bloodshed be prevented at all?

I think there is only one reasonable solution. Let's assume Bashar al-Assad is willing to take it to the limit and sacrifice another 7,000 lives. In that case it would make sense to urge ranking officers to change sides.

Some four weeks ago, a high-ranking Syrian official defected while on a business trip to Egypt. He said some 80 percent of his colleagues were considering doing the same, but didn't dare to follow through on the idea. It's a well-known fact that those who defect must fear not only for themselves, but their entire families as well. But it might be possible to induce defections amid officials within the political and administrative structures. And if that started, it could work very quickly. As soon as enough people become convinced that the regime will fall, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And how could such a process be encouraged?

For instance by making clear to the opposition that there will be no "de-baathification" like in Iraq, where people starting at a relatively low administrative level where punished once the regime fell. So the Syrian opposition would have to agree that there will be no collective punishment, and that only individual misconduct will be investigated. Only those with blood on their hands will be punished! It's a difficult process, but it is a possibility.

Interview: Lewis Gropp/ ar
Editor: Rob Mudge