ANOTHER DIPLOMATIC EQUIVALENT OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION
(…   while trying to make out as a hot date in…Switzerland)

The international community finally decided that the situation in Syria has become too dangerous to ignore any longer; and, despite its own conflicting interests about what to do about it, mainly those between Russia, Iran, and the US, it has opted to convene a “peace conference” under the auspices of the UN to attempt to resolve that conflict.

Unfortunately, such an effort is much too little and way too late, being another diplomatic equivalent of erectile dysfunction, while trying to make out as a hot date in…Switzerland, offering no possibility of any gratifying results…for anyone involved. To be blunt about it, the harsh reality of the situation is that there can be no negotiated political settlement between the Assad regime (and its Alewite and Ba’athist Party supporters) and its opponents (mostly the rest of the Syrian people), because too much blood has been spilled by it, and both understand that irredeemable fact.

After almost four years of massive mayhem and slaughter, not to mention new reports of atrocities coming to light, the Assad regime thus has no incentive to let go of its bloody grip on power there because, to do so, would literally be fatal to it and all its adherents (much as what happened with the Ceacescus of Romania), thus, it is locked into the same mindset of another heinous tyranny’s last gasps…at the fall of Berlin in WWII…preferring to see it end with nothing but piles of corpses and rubble left in a nation once called…Syria.

For its part, the -Opposition-, which spontaneously rose up in a quest for freedom from its tyranny, and once had unity of purpose for that, is now in disarray and fragmented into factions fighting against each other to see which one can achieve dominance over everyone else. A sorry state of affairs wide open for extremist elements of one kind or another to be the end result, and leaving the Syrian people in as bad if not a worse situation than they are today. Thus, without that former sense of unity and purpose, the –Opposition- offers no viable alternative to the Assad regime.

This leaves the international community without any workable resolution for this situation except, perhaps, the unappealing alternative of imposing…partition…between the two. The question is: How and in what way can that be done, and, what, if any, positive results might be gained from doing so…compared to what there is in Syria today?

First of all, it would establish a buffer zone between the two parties of this conflict, thereby reducing, if not ending the current bloodshed, and perhaps reversing the stream of refugees out of Syria.

Secondly, it would require a minimum of a 10Km wide no-go/no-fly swath of territory, starting on the Mediterranean coast just north and west of Homs, all the way to the Jordanian border. Such a zone to be made off-limits to both parties of this conflict, with the Assad regime confined to the inner area of it, and the –Opposition-  given  the entirety of the areas beyond it. Enforcement of that off-limits could be made with drone technology, advising both parties that any intrusion of trespass by either of them, on or over it would be considered a hostile breach and subject to immediate attack. In effect, such a zone would be declared a free-fire zone with no concerns for collateral damage (since much of that would be open desert terrain there would be little potential for any erroneous strikes anyway).

The net effect of such an imposed buffer would be a de facto cease fire, since neither party could directly attack the other in any way, thereby creating a “safe haven” behind which the –Opposition- would have a better chance to consolidate and form itself into a coherent entity, one which could ultimately become the new legitimate and recognized authority for the Syrian people. More importantly, the millions of Syrian refugees could then return there to re-establish some semblance of a normal life for themselves as the free and well ordered society of a re-born Free Syrian Republic. Furthermore, secured from conflict, such an entity could then be properly assisted with both humanitarian and redevelopment aid for that purpose.

The Assad regime’s enclave beyond that zone could simply be left to slowly rot and wither away. A process which would probably accelerate once its rank and file supporters realized it was a lost cause, and that life on the other side was a much more attractive proposition. At some point, whatever value or use it might have to its external supporters would also disappear, and these would also abandon it. Meanwhile, one by one, the other members of the international community could unilaterally withdraw their diplomatic recognition of its “sovereignty”, severing all relations with it, shifting their recognition to the new Free Syrian Republic instead.

To those who might object to such an approach because it violates the principle of …sovereignty…perhaps the best response to that is this: Sovereignty derives from legitimacy. Once any government turns its military forces back against its own people, its legitimacy no longer exists and its “sovereignty” is thus forfeited. So perhaps it is time for the international community, as the UN, to adopt that principle, as new criteria for intervention, using the Assad regime as a cautionary example of what can happen to those who violate it.

CENTURION