Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya is under severe strain but has not yet collapsed after 100 days of Nato-led air strikes, while Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has intensified its repression against its own people. Will these two dictators ever be overthrown?
The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is now beyond reform. Over the past three months at least 1,400 protesters demanding political reforms have been killed, thousands have been arrested and tortured, cites have had electricity, water and phone lines cut and whole populations subjected to collective punishment. Thousands of refugees have fled Syria, mainly to Turkey and Lebanon.
Assad pays lip service to reform, such as during his speech lastMonday when he made avague reference to constitutional reform, but never delivers on such promises.
On the contrary, whenever he speaks about change this is always followed by an escalation of repression by his regime. It is as if Assad’s promise of reform is nothing but a sick joke on his countrymen.
It is also true that the international community’s options over Syria are limited – there will certainly not be any Libya-style military intervention to get rid of Assad – and many fear there will be regional consequences if such a regime is about to collapse. Syria’s Assad, is after all, closely allied to Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, which could greatly complicatematters if brought into the equation.
However, the failure of the UN Security Council to approve even the mildest of condemnations of the Syrian regime’s actions, due to opposition from Russia and China, is absolutely disgraceful.
Moscow’s silence on the Syrian uprising is particularly shameful as Russia is one of the few countries which has some leverage over Damascus. The two countries were close allies during the Cold War and have maintained good relations ever since.
However, this does not mean that nothing more can be done to exert pressure on Assad. Both the US and the EU can increase their sanctions against the Syrian regime and target companies and businessmen that finance it.
Senior members of the Syrian security services who are involved in repressing innocent civilians must also be told that they will be held accountable for their actions.
One cannot overlook the fact that the Syrian Baathist regime is controlled by the Alawites, an offshoot of Shia Islam, who represent only about 11 per cent of the population. It is thanks to Alawite control of the armed forces and intelligence services that the regime has managed to remain in power.
Analysts believe that many senior Alawite officers would have to defect for any chance of Assad being overthrown, and there is no indication that this is happening, at least not for now. However, this could possibly come about if these officers believe the regime is really doomed, either as a result of increased EU and US sanctions or a President entirely out of control who continues to order his military to kill innocent civilians regardless of the numbers involved.
An overthrow of the regime by the military might be one way of securing the protection of the Alawite minority in a country which is 74 per cent Sunni Muslim, 10 per cent Christian and five per cent Druze.
Since Nato took control of all military operations for Libya under UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on March 31, the alliance conducted a total of 12,347 sorties.
The targets hit include 740 ammunition facilities, 420 tanks and other armoured vehicles, 370 military facilities and bases and 255 radar systems.
Yet Gaddafi is still in control of Tripoli and remains as defiant as ever. However, his grip on power has weakened, Nato’s actions prevented genocide taking place in Benghazi and the international community is in close contact with the opposition National Transitional Council, with many countries, including Malta, giving it some form of official recognition.
There is no doubt that Nato has been acting correctly in Libya and that its actions has saved thousands of lives, but because of its limited mandate – it cannot send in ground troops or arm the rebels, nor can it hit utility supplies – ousting Gaddafi is taking longer than expected.
This has been made more difficult by the fact that Gaddafi has the support and protection of a hardcore group of loyalists who have everything to lose in a regime change, as well as the rebels’ weakness as an organised fighting force.
It is true that Nato cannot continue the war in Libya indefinitely and last week the heads of both the French and British navies said their countries will face difficult questions over what assets to deploy should the conflict last into the second half of this year.
In the US Congress, the war in Libya is proving to be less popular and outgoing Defence Secretary Robert Gates has criticised some European Nato countries for failing to adequately resource the Libya operation.
This does not mean the war cannot be won. Nato must remain resolute and other major European countries, besides Britain and France, should contribute to the Libya operation.
A truce, as suggested by Italy, should not be considered, as this would simply give Gaddafi time to review his strategy.
The good news is that the Libyan National Transitional Council in Benghazi has said it is in close contact with an underground network of opponents to Gaddafi in Tripoli and that it believes it is only a matter of time before there is an uprising in the Libyan capital.
National Transitional Council member Alamin Belhaj told the BBC recently: “Many people in the army and the police tell us that now they are with Gaddafi, but they will be with us when the moment comes.”
This is surely music to Nato’s ears.