PEOPLE’S personal quest for political power, and their zeal to sustain that power without a shred of democratic principles and practices can spell ruin for any country; and Syria has top billing here. Syria, nonetheless, is not the only country that treads this line. Today’s Perspectives, however, would focus on Syria’s turmoil. But first, I will present some background information on Syria, then its involvement in the Arab Spring, and efforts underway to end the bloodshed.

Nexis UK reports that Syria, with 185,180 square kilometres, has a population of 20.8 million; its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita is US$2,021, with a life expectancy 74, and an adult literacy rate of 79.6%; its Real GDP in 2011 was -5.5%, and estimated to be -6% in 2012, but it may be even worse; annual average inflation was 6.5% in 2011 and its estimate for 2012 is 17.3%; crude oil production dropped dramatically from almost 375,000 barrels per day in 2009 to about 275,000 in 2012. Since 2004, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Syria, and according to Oil Minister Sufian Alao, the Eurpoean Union sanctions has produced US$3 billion of revenue loss.
The Tunisia man who burned himself in 2010 set off a train of events that permanently transformed the political architecture of Middle East politics, keenly referred to as the Arab Spring; the consequences include the perpetual Middle East instability, and the fall of autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Last year, Syria also started to adopt tactics from the Arab Spring.

Syria is a primarily Sunni country, governed by the minority Alawites whose history of crushing dissent is ruthless. The Syrian rumblings began in March 2011 in a southern town, Daraa, where protesters demanded political freedoms, and where security troops killed five protesters.
Today, about 15,000 civilians have been killed, with almost daily killings as a way of life in Syria. And even as former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan launched his six-point ceasefire peace plan, two massacres occurred at Houla and Mazraat al-Qubair. Kofi Annan’s plan has no implementation status at this time.
The UK Guardian editorial of June 8, 2012, has its own take. It points out that Syria’s opposition sees the protests as part of the Arab Spring extension, where civilians are opposed to political tyranny, and that their cause is similar to what started the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. The editorial, nevertheless, notes some differences:
“The difference is a loyalist army, the ruthlessness of the regime’s response and the support it continues to enjoy. Syria’s is a popular uprising but not a universal one. One third of Syrian society support an insurrection, one third are pro-government and the remainder do not like either but fear the alternative.” These demographics suggest some level of polarization, and an increased level of sectarianism, which could reduce the life of an insurrection. And so, the Guardian’s position that the Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad’s inclination to negotiate may not be correct is sound analysis.
As the turmoil remains unabated, 17 people were killed in clashes in Deraa yesterday, and the possibility exists of a civil war in neighbouring Lebanon between the Sunnis and Alawites, similar to what happened in 1975, the impotent UN Security Council watches as Syria burns, with Russia and China not accepting Britain, U.S., and France’s plan to use NATO forces in Syria.
Two days ago, former UK Labour Foreign Secretary, David Owen noted that the world is experiencing “constrained intervention,” in that no country will unilaterally intervene in Syria without UN authority. Then the next best option, according to the Russian Middle East peace envoy, may be to adjust the Kofi Annan six-point ceasefire plan to accommodate both Russia and China; this adjustment may be the most immediate way of ending the killings in Syria.
Some time ago, I said that the usual trend in international relations is the supremacy of demands for political correctness and diplomatic niceties over prevention intervention to resolve conflicts. This is unfortunate, because such correctness and niceties shortchange prevention dynamism that could really end the perennially outrageous slaughter of victims at the hands of global bullies.
Former President Bill Clinton boldly declared in his book, ‘My Life’, that one of the greatest misgivings of his presidency was his failure to prevent Rwanda’s tragedies, where, in 100 days, 800,000 people were killed from a population of 8 million in 1994. Today, Syria already has lost 15,000 men, women, and children in a battle for political freedoms, while Russia, China, U.S., Britain, and France dilly-dally in the UN Security Council to procure and sustain their own vested national interests.
Well, the U.N. Security Council may not want to express regrets, as Clinton did towards Rwanda, because it can take the bold step to end the bloodshed in Syria, vis-à-vis adjusting the Kofi Annan ceasefire plan.