IJCentral: International Justice Central

Last week saw the death of Libyan Colonel Qaddafi, August saw the beginning of Mubarak’s trial in Egypt, and early on in January the world witnessed Ben Ali flee from Tunisia to Saudi Arabia. As the authoritarian rulers of the Middle East and North African region are slowly but surely being deposed, one question arises: What of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad? The Syrian president and Syrian military forces have been responsible, since protests began in March, for the death of more than 3,000 revolutionaries and the displacement of more than 10,000 civilians to neighboring countries such as Turkey and Lebanon. The Free Syrian Army, consisting of about 15,000 defected soldiers and the Syrian National Council (SNC) have emerged as the main opposition groups claiming to represent the revolution. As groups such as these continue to organize and gain support, they have the potential to undermine Al-Assad’s legitimacy and the decades-long rule of his family. It is hard to imagine how a leader who has killed so many of his citizens and whose power rests on the support of a few powerful elites and the army, plus the unwillingness of certain international actors to condemn him, can possibly rule for much longer. It is logical, therefore, to see this as a point of no return for the Assad regime; the important question to consider now is not if and when, but how Al-Assad will be deposed.

Possible exit strategies for Al-Assad resemble those of his former fellow Arab leaders, namely: defeat at the hands of the opposition, asylum in a country that would agree to harbor Al-Assad, and legal trial. Let’s examine the first option: The actual capture of Al-Assad would require months of intense and bloody fighting. The seizure of Damascus and government headquarters in the capital would most likely prove to be a long and brutal process, resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths and massive infrastructural damage. While there have been no considerable protests in Damascus compared with Hama and Homs, local businessmen have in fact supported the opposition through large monetary transactions, contributing to the dissent. To avoid a similar fate to Qaddafi, Al-Assad should step down and let his future be determined by trial. After all, who wants to see the humiliating image of another Arab leader’s rule end with his being captured from a hole in the ground?

Seeking refuge from a sympathetic regime is another potential escape route, but with Assad’s reputation worsening, his options are becoming limited. At the start of the Syrian uprisings in March, countries such as Turkey were working to secure a safe exit for Bashar. However, as the leader proved obstinate in clinging onto power, causing the death of thousands along the way, he earned the status of a pariah. Today, countries like Iran still provide a viable option for Assad. But in this case, justice would not be achieved. Let’s remember, this is not a leader like Tunisia’s Ben Ali who stepped down immediately. He has been responsible for the death, imprisonment, and displacement of thousands and should be held accountable for such actions.

The most viable option for Al-Assad and for post-revolutionary transitional justice in Syria is trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC). One of the advantages of having Al-Assad tried by an international court rather than a local one is that the transitional Syrian National Council will be able to orchestrate a quicker transition and focus its resources on restructuring the government rather than on a distracting trial as has been the case in Egypt. So far, Mubarak’s trial has been postponed twice and procedures to replace the first judge for the case have been put in place. Meanwhile, Egyptian presidential and parliamentary elections have been stalled, and much of the public has instead been concerned with trial updates.

There have been calls for international trial by protesters both in Syria and abroad. In a recent protest in New York calling for the end of the regime, I heard Syrian Americans chanting, “Bye Bye Assad, we want to see you in The Hague”.  It is now the role of the international community to respond to these internal demands and take action to delegitimize the regime. The U.N. Security Council has been urged to refer charges of crimes against humanity by Al-Assad to the ICC. U.S. Senators have written similar pleas to U.N. Ambassador to the U.S., Susan Rice. The U.S. has also called for targeted sanctions against the regime, which would constrain profit from oil that is currently being used to fund military operations. However, China, which holds energy contracts, and Russia, which seeks to preserve its military agreements with Syria, have vetoed such attempts, prolonging the Syrian struggle and the possibility of international law playing a positive role in the country.

The current factors on the ground are stalling potentially successful transitional methods. As of this week, the Syrian president has made agreements with the Arab League to stop violence against peaceful protesters and for negotiations between the regime and the Syrian National Council.  Already, protesters have been killed and more proof of Al-Assad’s noncompliance is to be seen as Friday protests continue. This agreement appears to be a time-buying ploy from Assad, but eventually, if the Arab states are unable to put effective pressure on Al-Assad, the violence will continue and the likelihood of the international community imposing sanctions or taking military action will increase.

Please send any observations or interesting articles to my attention at Nadine@skylightpictures.com