Daily Times

November 2015 has been a turning point for the Syrian crisis. A Russian aircraft with 224 passengers on board was blown up in midair over the Sinai Peninsula. A few days later, a bomb exploded at a public rally in Ankara killing over 100 people and injuring many more. Then, in mid November, bombs exploded in a stadium in Paris where thousands had converged to watch a soccer match. Almost at the same time, a theatre hall was attacked by a group of armed men. These incidents in Paris took the lives of over 123 innocent people and left over 200 seriously wounded. The following week, a luxury hotel in Cairo, where judges overseeing the elections were staying, was attacked by gunmen. Islamic State (IS), operating in Syria and Iraq, claimed responsibility for all these attacks. IS took revenge against military assaults on its forces. In all these attacks, the victims included men, women and children who had nothing to do with the war efforts of their governments. Nonetheless, they paid the supreme price.

Russia, during the past four years, has opposed foreign intervention in Syria and has advocated a political solution to the crisis. It, however, backed Syrian leader Basher al-Assad and maintained that he was the legitimate leader of the country. Moscow, at the same time, provided arms and ammunitions to the Syrian army in order to keep the insurgency under control. Iran was another valuable partner of Assad. Iran’s army and militia are reportedly fighting alongside the Syrian army against the insurgency. Military analysts are of the opinion that had Moscow and Tehran not extended support, Assad would have been removed a long time ago and that Syria would not have gone through this unprecedented bloodshed. This view is, however, not shared by others; they believe the removal of Assad would have dragged the country into more disintegration as witnessed in Libya.

It is fair to conclude that Assad’s abhorrence of pluralism and pursuit of dynastic rule triggered the crisis four years ago. The people of Syria have never had the opportunity to participate in the governance of their country. Assad’s father, Hafiz al-Assad, ruled the country for about 20 years suppressing dissidents. After his death, Basher al-Assad came to power but the pattern of governance remained unchanged. The rule of the Alawites, the minority community Assad belongs to, continued. Following the 2002 Iraq invasion, the Sunnis, the second largest community, were marginalised. The Iraqi government pursued a highly sectarian policy purging the Sunnis from government services, including the armed forces. The Sunnis in both Syria and Iraq were marginalised.

General Petraeus, the US top commander in Iraq at the height of insurgency, reached out to Sunni tribes and brought them to the side of peace and stability. They were assured of fair treatment and just share in government services. An era of peace and tranquility appeared looming on the horizon. A unified defence force was set into motion with the enrollment of youth from Shia, Sunni and other communities. The US army provided training and equipped them with arms and ammunitions. An army of 200,000 personnel emerged in a few years. The US spent six billion dollars to help the Iraqi army reach the best of its capability.

The US government began to drawdown its troops in 2011 and began consultation with Baghdad on the deployment of a residual force in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opposed the residual US army. Instead, he suggested complete withdrawal of foreign troops and the last US marine left Iraq at the end of 2012. The de-Baathification, initiated by the provisional administration in Iraq in 2003, marked the beginning of the exclusion of Sunnis in government services. Thousands of trained personnel from the police and defence forces were laid off because of their association with the Saddam regime. They were left with no jobs and had very little savings to survive on. In this chaotic environment many of them lost homes and properties. Communal harmony came under strain. As the insurgency raised its head, former defence and police personnel were welcomed by radical outfits. Given their familiarity with road networks and important installations, these former military personnel became valuable inductions in the insurgency. The insurgency inflicted severe casualties to the occupation army. The US army lost over 4,400 marines and the casualties of the coalition partners were also significant.

The overtures made by General Patraeus were discarded by the Maliki administration after the US troops were withdrawn. Parochialism began to overshadow national reconciliation. Sunni tribal leaders were betrayed and ethnic cleansing resumed with renewed enthusiasm. While the disenchanted Sunni youths were looking for new opportunities, IS emerged championing the cause of the Sunnis in the region. Sunni youths, not only from the region but North America and Europe also, were lured in to join the radical outfit. About 30,000 fighters reportedly comprise IS’ combat forces.

Reports emanating from IS held territory reveal that most members have had no prior jobs, are frustrated at the lack of opportunities when it comes to entering trade and commerce, and are overwhelmed at the denial of freedom to open their minds. They come from a region marked by huge income inequality where 47 percent of the youth are either unemployed or under-employed, and 40 percent want to start their own business. IS offered jobs and business opportunities, and many got married. They were permitted to peruse a particular brand of governance and faith. This new opportunity has been welcomed by many disillusioned youngsters. But those who had expected freedom from tyranny, bigotry and injustice became jaded. They began to witness how bigotry and intolerance culminated in the beheading of men and enslavement of women, and became desperate to escape. Those who succeeded in moving out narrated horrific tales of brutality.

In the meantime, four million people in the region have been on the move in search of safe sanctuary. During September and October thousands of refugees reached Europe. Europeans were taken by surprise at the influx of these refugees and could not cope with the arrivals. Notwithstanding their unpreparedness, Germany, France, Poland and Scandinavian countries accepted a large number of refugees and promised to take in more. The US announced it would take 10,000 by the end of next year while the newly elected Canadian government has agreed to accept 25,000 in the next six months. The horrendous incidents in Paris, however, have sent a shockwave all over the northern hemisphere. The Conservatives are urging their governments to promote settlement of the displaced population back in their troubled homes.

Some US presidential hopefuls have made egregious proposals: granting asylum only to Christians refugees, issuing special identity cards to Muslims and shutting down the borders to all refugees. President Obama, however, reiterated that refugees will undergo a screening process and dismissed the fear of infiltration by terrorists.

The carnage in Paris has only harmed the refugees. The countries that have agreed to accept refugees will put in place stricter screening processes in order to filter the bad from the good. Others who have been inclined to accept refugees will be cautious about their next move. While the debate on accepting refugees goes on thousands of desperate migrants will helplessly wait at the borders of Europe in the midst of rains and severe cold.

The writer is a former official of the United Nations