* Few believe unarmed monitors will halt Syria violence
* West still wants regime change, Russia, China disagree
* US, allies perhaps shifting towards much longer game
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
WASHINGTON, April 14 (Reuters) – With a cease-fire barely
holding and the deployment of unarmed foreign observers expected
to ease but not end months of violence, world powers are still
struggling to find a longer-term strategy for Syria.
After heavy diplomatic wrangling, the United Nations
Security Council on Saturday finally approved the deployment of
what could be several hundred monitors amid reports of sporadic
ongoing fighting.
In theory, the world’s most powerful countries, the
government of President Bashar al-Assad and much of the Syrian
opposition have all signed up to a multipoint plan formulated by
former U.N. chief Kofi Annan. But the reality remains much more
complex.
While Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly said they want to
avoid a Libya-style externally backed regime change, the United
States, Britain and France still say they want Assad gone.
“The main focus at the moment is the … rapid deployment of
monitors,” said one Western official on condition of anonymity.
“That’s a priority, but it’s not the only one … at the end of
the day, do not see a future for Syria with Assad in charge. We
are in this for the long haul.”
But officials concede they have few immediate tools with
which to make that happen. Even a U.S. plan to provide
“nonlethal” support to opposition fighters could end up being
shelved, some suspect, largely because the rebels remain so
disunited and ineffective.
U.S. pressure, insiders say, has already deterred Saudi
Arabia and Qatar from making good on long-running talk they
might provide weapons.
For now, Annan, Western powers and their Arab allies say
Assad remains in breach of much of the peace plan. Privately,
many Western diplomats worry his strategy may be to give just
enough to drive a wedge between them and a much more reluctant
Russia and China.
“The game for the weekend is watching whether the ceasefire
holds and the monitors are approved,” said another Western
official. “After that it gets more complicated.”
SUPERPOWER POLITICS
The most realistic immediate hope, officials say, would be
that Assad’s forces cease use of heavy weaponry.
But if an earlier Arab league monitoring attempt in Syria –
or other previous similar missions in Sri Lanka and Kosovo – are
anything to go by, unarmed observers might struggle to stop
killings, abductions and use of snipers.
Certainly, few believe Syria will genuinely follow through
to withdraw troops from urban areas or allow peaceful protest.
For world powers, the true challenge will come if the monitors
report a fall in violence but accuse Syria of ignoring other
areas of Annan’s plan.
At that stage, Western officials say they would return to
the Security Council with a much stronger resolution, likely
based on drafts previously rejected by Russia and China. That
could include much tighter sanctions and perhaps even
internationally protected “humanitarian corridors.”
Their hope would be that Moscow and Beijing, having invested
their own diplomatic capital in Annan, would lose patience with
Assad and back tougher action. But some doubt that will happen.
On Friday, a Russian news agency reported Moscow had decided
to keep a warship permanently stationed off the Syrian coast “on
a permanent basis.” While another Russian official said the move
had “nothing to do” with events in Syria, it appeared a direct
challenge to any foreign states still mulling intervention.
Others, however, believe Russia could yet abandon Assad if
given guarantees that its interests – particularly access to the
Tartus naval base – were respected. Diplomats say senior Russian
officials have briefed foreign counterparts that they ultimately
expect him to fall and be replaced with another similar member
of the Alawite minority.
PLAYING A LONGER GAME?
That would still not be enough to either meet the
requirements of the Annan plan nor the demands of Western
powers.
Privately, however, some officials already wonder how
realistic their regime change goals might be. At the heart of
the policy challenge, they say, is Syria’s opposition – widely
regarded as chaotic even compared to Libya’s notoriously poorly
coordinated rebels.
“Your problem is that they are still a very disparate array
of groups,” said the second Western official. “You have to be
sure you are not doing more harm than good.”
With some reports opposition fighters themselves may have
broken the ceasefire, keeping them to the Annan plan could also
be a challenge.
“It’s going to be a question of the opposition demonstrating
that it’s peaceful so that he (Assad) will start to withdraw,”
said another Western diplomat. “Now, if none of that works,
we’re back to where we were.”
Turkey, analysts say, could yet send forces into Syria to
create a buffer zone if cross-border firing and refugee flows
continue. But, in general, officials say foreign powers have
little appetite for military action. Some believe the United
States in particular may be girding itself for a much longer
game.
“The policy of this administration is much more about
looking at where you want to be in three or four years time and
then working out how you get there than it is about managing the
here and now,” said Jon Alterman, a former U.S. State Department
official and now chair of strategy at the Washington think tank
the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“In the longer term, there is a feeling that sanctions will
have an effect, that China and particularly Russia can be
persuaded to move their position. In the short term, there are
real limits to what can be done.”
