Few can contest the fact that the Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria has committed severe atrocities against its citizens, with the UN considering the conflict to be equivalent to suffering, which defies comprehension. From Ankara to Berlin, much of the current regime’s profile continues to be controversial since the outset of the civil war in 2013. Yet, few have called for sanctions to be levied squarely on members of the Al Assad family on war profiteering charges as has Washington DC, which is yet another push for regime change. Sanctions imposed under the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act against the members of the Assad family serves as another grim reminder that Donald Trump’s administration is less concerned about civil rights in Syria and more concerned about regime change, which is bound to create greater instability in the Middle East. This latest move belies the notion that the Trump administration is committed to a non-interventionist foreign policy given that the imposed sanctions squarely target the Assad family, including the First Lady, Asma Al Assad, who is being accused of war profiteering.
Scholars, who have studied the Syrian quagmire and Middle Eastern dynamics, acknowledge that the quagmire besetting the country is a hotbed of proxy warfare between competing alliances and not limited to certain powerful families exerting their influence, which may certainly be a contributing factor to the crisis. The US and its Gulf allies have played a key role in fomenting discord and contributing to a spike in casualties in Syria. Efforts at establishing peace without targeting dynasties, such as the creation of de-escalation zones by Turkey, Russia and Syria, have also been contested by Washington DC, which has conditioned the resolution of the Syrian dispute to be directly proportional to the unconditional removal of Assad.
Recognising the legitimacy of the Al Assad regime is still open to debate in Europe. This stands in stark contrast to Washington DC, which sees no possibility of transition in Syria without regime change
The Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act specifically targets corporations and sovereign states conducting business dealings and transactions with the Al Assad regime who will then be liable to sanctions as well as travel restrictions. Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said in a statement that Washington DC will not simply stand by as the Assad regime displaces thousands of its civilians to benefit its regime friendly elites. The most obvious ally would be Iran, which the US had previously strangled with punitive sanctions and refrained from providing relief to which ultimately compounded its domestic COVID-19 quagmire. In addition, provocations on the Strait of Hormuz and bellicose rhetoric directed at Tehran over its activities in the Middle East has led to greater instability in the region, which goes beyond the historic Saudi-Iranian rivalry. By specifically targeting both Iranian and Al Assad regimes with sanctions, it is clear that toppling the standing governments and installing pro-American regimes with blatant disregard for whether they constitute dictatorships or democratic setups is the underlying motivation for the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act to be invoked.
The bill itself was drafted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Eliot Engel, and has had bipartisan support in the US Congress. Interestingly though, the police photographer, named Caesar, with whom this act is named after, presented the evidence of Al Assad’s war atrocities to the US Congress in 2014 when the Obama administration was in power as pressure was mounting on the administration to launch a preemptive strike against Damascus on the premise of the latter using chemical weapons against its own citizens. The rationale of the Obama administration to use force has been contested on legal grounds as a violation of international law. The fact that the Caesar Act is now being propped up again in 2020 by an administration, which was initially committed to non-interventionism makes such a move open to considerable scepticism. It also shows that on the subject of taking punitive actions against regimes that are against Trump’s interests, there is a brazen clarity of purpose.
Sanctions on Syria have also been imposed by the European Union where there is unanimity over curbing commercial entities having business dealings with the Assad regime. The EU policy towards Syria is governed by UN resolution 2254, which was passed in 2015 and focuses on the subject of political transitioning. As unclear as what transitioning in Syria actually means, there is also a clear divide in Europe on levying sanctions on the Al Assad family where the southern Balkan states, as well as Italy, are opposed to dethronement while others, such as Germany, the UK and France, are comfortable with adopting a maximalist approach. Recognising the legitimacy of the Al Assad regime is still open to debate in Europe. This stands in stark contrast to Washington DC, which sees no possibility of transition in Syria without regime change. Interestingly though, in both cases, populist governments and their decisions are critical determinants wherein the American case, populism has meant affirmation of imposing sanctions and pressing for regime change in Syria.
Even in the current COVID-19 environment, regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, who are embroiled in theatres of conflict, such as in Yemen, have been pressing for the implementation of peace frameworks to end conflicts on humanitarian grounds. Global efforts at mitigating tensions and resolving conflicts are needed, which involves all stakeholders, including regimes in power. Only then could some progress in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 truly materialise.
The writer is an Assistant Research Officer at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. He was also a Visiting Fellow at Stimson Center, Washington DC in 2016