Syria: the unexpected position of the Arab League

Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

The aggravation of the civil war in Syria and the prospect of a military strike by the Western allies continue to be a central theme in the European media. The German edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung analyzed the surprisingly moderate position taken by the countries of the League of Arab States in relation to the possible military intervention of the West, and tried to explain its reasons . “Vestnik Kavkaza” offers readers the translation of the article.

The signal from Cairo was clear. "Egypt rejects any military intervention in Syria”, Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmi said. “We believe that the political solution to the crisis is the only way out of it". According to Fahmi , haste will not help in this matter. "Those responsible for the alleged use of poison gas last week can be held liable only based on the provided accurate information”, head of the Egyptian diplomacy said. Therefore, before taking further steps it is necessary to wait for the findings of UN inspectors who investigated the incident at the site of the devastation.

Ambassadors of the Arab League, as well as Fahmi , refused to support the U.S. government in the planned military intervention in Syria. Though having accused the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al- Assad in the "heinous crime ", at the same time, they demanded patient negotiations and respect for the UN Security Council and warned against any hasty action. It is noteworthy that the attitude demonstrated by the Arab countries led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the past few months has been quite different. After all, these countries demanded a greater resolve of the West against the dictatorship in Damascus. They also sought unambiguous military support of the armed Syrian opposition. But now, when, after the alleged use of poison gas in the eastern province of Guta, the situation has changed and a military strike already seems inevitable, the Arab League calls for moderation. Obviously, it is not without the sentiments of the population in their own countries.

Supporting Islamists in Syria

We cannot say that Arab diplomats in Cairo have made the wrong bet. Employees of the American Foreign Ministry, according to press reports , welcomed the unilateral accusation of the regime in Damascus. They did not expect any more from the Arab League. "Division of labor" within the contact group "Friends of Syria" , according to which Qatar , Saudi Arabia and Turkey acted as a driving force , while America and Britain played the role of indecisive interventionists, still remains: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has given tacit consent to arming the Islamist opposition by Doha and Riyadh shortly after taking office. Now, according to the Arab countries , the further weakening of the Syrian regime's military depends on Western countries and their targeted military strikes .

Almost casually, the Egyptian Foreign Minister Fahmi added that Egypt does not support "jihad " in Syria. This is indeed the case. Back in June, a few weeks before his overthrow, the Islamist President Mohamed Morsi took part in the conference at which the extremist Sunni sheiks openly called for a holy war against the regime in Damascus. An employee of the presidential administration of Egypt assured that the Egyptians returning home after fighting in Syria would not be punished. Morsi even called for a no-fly zone over Syria and announced the severance of diplomatic relations. In Cairo, the authorities believe that by these steps the Islamist president finally set up the military against himself. The concern about the fact that the already unstable Sinai Peninsula would be full of more jihadists ultimately contributed to the overthrow of Morsi .

Egypt: changing course

Shortly before a possible military strike by the West at the Syrian positions , Egyptian Foreign Minister Fahmi adjusted Morsi’s course , and the most populous Arab country has returned to its old line: the criticism of the dictator Bashar al- Assad and no foreign intervention. The Arab League still maintains its decision taken on Tuesday night. While the League imposes "full responsibility" on the regime in Damascus for the alleged use of chemical weapons, it rejects military intervention in the country and, as an adequate response, insists on the transfer of "war criminals" to the international tribunal.

In a vote on the resolution only Lebanon, Algeria and Iraq abstained. The political class in Beirut is divided into supporters and opponents of Assad. Any other position during the vote could involve the country in a maelstrom of war. Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki supports the Alawite regime in Damascus; at the same time, the leaders of Sunni tribes in the western provinces of Iraq bordering Syria sided with Sunni insurgents.

Since Lakhdar Brahimi, Special Envoy of the Arab League on the Syrian conflict, also acts as an intermediary on behalf of the UN, it is not surprising that the diplomats in Cairo called on the UN Security Council to reach an agreement. He must overcome the differences in order to recognize the leadership in Damascus responsible for the "genocide that the Syrian regime has been committing for over two years." Back in November 2011, Syria was excluded from the League of Arab States – and primarily Sunni Gulf countries insisted on the isolation of the Syrian regime supported by Shiite Iran.

Unlike Brahimi, who on Wednesday fundamentally opposed military intervention and called on the Security Council to take further steps, the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal made a pretty clear statement about the intervention plans. He called on the international community to take a "decisive and strong" stance towards Damascus. This can be interpreted as an acceptance of the plans of the Western allies. The opposition Syrian National Coalition is currently dominated by the followers of Saudi Arabia, who were informed of the impending attacks. "The purpose of the attack is not the victory over the forces of Assad but the best starting position for negotiations on a proposed peace conference in Geneva”, Saudi newspaper Arab News quoted the spokesman of the opposition alliance. This also explains why the Arab League insists on the political solution.