Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Monday that his country would support a federal state if the Syrian negotiators saw fit. It seems that Russia does not rule out such an outcome given the inconclusiveness of its military adventures in Syria and the unsuitability of Assad for a genuine solution that could protect Russia’s interests.
In fact, some key countries adopt the federal form of governance whereby individual states or districts enjoy a certain amount of autonomy. Some observers hail the federal solution in countries such as India where the central government enjoys only limited powers in a country fraught with ethnic and linguistic diversity.
Yet, states in this part of the world are unitary rather than federal. The central government is the key and the only players in each country where provinces or governorates do not elect provincial legislatures. This is so true when it comes to Syria. Since its independence in the1940s, the Syrian regimes have taken all decision in various provinces. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the suggestion of introducing federalism in Syria is meant to pave the way for a virtual partitioning of the country especially when the country is falling apart.
It is not as if Russia is alone in this tricky proposal. Indeed, US Secretary of State John Kerry lately said that partitioning Syria might be a possible outcome. Needless to say, some key officials such as Joe Biden has voiced their opinions long time ago that federalism would not be a bad idea for Iraq. Taken together, it may be safe to assume that the United States will not oppose the federal solution in the end.
As the United States and Russia are steering the conflict toward a cease-fire, the idea of dividing the country into separate enclaves is gaining currency. Some analysts suspect that splitting Syria along ethnic lines is not a bad idea! But the point is that the political culture of the Middle East is adverse toward federalism in the way and form known in the West.
That being said, this scenario may be hard to see the light. It will trigger further conflicts particularly between the Kurds and Turkey. A regional fall over is the last thing the region needs. I believe that western as well as Russian diplomats are acting as if they are orientalists. They really do not understand the internal working of the Middle East and their recipe for the solution reflects their misunderstanding.
Syria, in particular, is a lynchpin of the Middle East and it should be treated differently. To be sure, there is a way out of the quagmire in Syria. Assad should be forced to step down and the Geneva declaration should be implemented. Russia and Iran-backed militias should internalize once and for all that Assad’s unprecedented brutality make it impossible for the Syrian people to accept him as part of any solution. All beating around the bush will only perpetuate the conflict and help continue this vicious asymmetric warfare.
Interestingly enough, the American administration has opted for a strategy that only helped prop up Assad thus increasing the chances of dividing Syria. Prior to Syria, the United States helped divide Iraq and Libya! Some pundits argue that the United States prefer to see a weakened Arab countries and partitioning them is the best way to secure their perpetual weakness. According to Jurgen Todenhofer, a German journalist and former politician, “The US divided Iraq, they divided Libya, and now they could divide Syria into four or five parts. Divided countries are weak countries, and I have an impression that certain American politicians like weak countries in the Middle East.”
In brief, the best scenario is the one that keeps Syria as a single unitary country. But this entails getting rid of Assad and implementing the Geneva declaration of June 2012.
