When over two years ago, the Syrian protest against the dictatorship of Bashir el Assad degenerated into armed confrontation between opposition forces and the Syrian army, it was generally thought that such armed conflict would be quickly resolved with the possible defeat of the Assad regime as happened in the case of Libya. So far this has not been the case. While the rebels have been armed and goaded by the western powers with the active support of members of the Arab League, the Assad regime has been sustained mainly by Russia, China, Iran and their other allies. Increasingly, we have seen the un-ipolarism of the past which followed the collapse of the communist bloc in the early 1990’s being replaced by a new bi-polarism that has seen the resurgence of a new power bloc led by Russia and China. The new situation has inadvertently made the civil war in that ancient and strategic Arab nation to be a lot more intractable. As the two blocs test their latest war arsenals on the Syrian soil, there has been wide scale destruction of both men and materials as has never been witnessed in the Middle East since the end of the gulf war in iraq. So far, there have been over 100,000 people killed, several others wounded and hundreds of billion dollars worth of property destroyed. The number of people displaced as refugees is now in the region of two million people with more than half of them being below the age of 17 years. While it was easy to end the Libyan civil war through a no fly zone that enabled the western powers to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels, it has not been possible to do the same for the Syrian rebel fighters because of the blockade of such resolutions by a resurgent Russia and China at the UN Security Council meetings. This situation has made it difficult for the Syrian opposition to get the kind of assistance that would enable them to defeat the Syrian Army and oust President Bashir el Assad from office. The situation has not equally been helped by the Russian and Chinese supply of its latest war arsenals which has largely enabled the Assad regime to regain the momentum and even be on the offensive. The western powers were clearly in a dilemma over how to resolve these Syrian crises in their favour when the chemical attack on civilian populations at the outskirt of Damascus on August 21 took place.
Even though the Assad regime denied the ownership of the attack claiming it was the rebels, increasing evidence points to the Assad regime as the culprit as it is unimaginable that the rebels will attack their own supporters with chemical weapons just to provoke a direct intervention by the western powers in their favour. While the Russians and Chinese vetoed a UN security resolution that would have enabled the western powers take a more decisive military action as happened in Libya, the French President Hollande while seeking parliamentary approval for direct military intervention, has gone to the international media to show proof of the Assad regime’s culpability in the said chemical attack.
The Syrian crises has increasingly seen the dissolution of the world system into a new bi-polarism that has the western powers led by the United States, Britain, France, Turkey and their allies on one side and the eastern bloc led by Russia, China, Iran and their allies on the other side. While the western powers are increasingly becoming desperate and seeking quick ways to end the civil war and oust the Assad regime from power, the Eastern bloc led by Russia is resolutely opposed to such military intervention and has warned of dire consequences should the western powers go ahead unilaterally to intervene militarily. Iran has even gone ahead to threaten enlarging the area of the conflict by attacking Israel while the latter has asserted its readiness to defend itself if attacked. Basher Assad himself has likened any military intervention by the western powers to a keg of powder that would have ripple effects all over the world.
The dire situation has emboldened both pro-war and anti-war protests in the major streets of the western cities. The western powers are not equally helped by legislative procedures which limit the ability of their presidents to act more decisively. As at date the UK parliament has voted against any military intervention. President Hollande of France is still awaiting parliamentary approval. President Obama is equally awaiting same. In fact, the US Senate has requested such request to be tied with budgetary estimates before it can take decision on it. The Arab League on its own has equally voted against military intervention. With the western powers still bent on a military intervention and ultimately ousting Assad from office and the resoluteness of a now resurgent eastern bloc to block what they liken to western unilatarism, it is clear that the uni-polarism that emerged in the wake of the collapse of the communist bloc is gradually giving to a new world order in which the eastern bloc led by Russia and China will play increasingly important roles. It will be quite interesting to see how the Syrian conflict will eventually be resolved.