To end Syria civil war, West must guarantee minorities' safety with peacekeeping force

Minorities in Syria support the Assad regime because they fear the alternative. To erode Bashar al-Assad's base of support, Western leaders should offer meaningful security reassurances to Syria's minorities, including the promise of an international peacekeeping force.

Hussein Malla/AP/File
A commander of the Ghurabaa al-Sham Front (a jihadist rebel group that is fighting in Syria) speaks on his phone in front of a church that was shelled by mortars at the Christian village of Judeida, in Idlib province, Syria, Feb. 21. Op-ed contributors Thorsten Janus and Helle Malmvig write: 'Without safety guarantees, Syria’s minorities are unlikely to shift support away from [the Assad regime].'

Though Syria’s civil war rages on, Western leaders may have the power to help end the bloody conflict. And it’s not by arming the rebels.

Instead, Western countries – in cooperation with regional powers like the Arab League – should work to offer meaningful security reassurances to the minorities now supporting the Assad regime. This will undermine Bashar al-Assad’s base, move the country toward a political resolution to the conflict, and help ensure an inclusive post-Assad society. Without safety guarantees, Syria’s minorities are unlikely to shift support away from Mr. Assad. The promise of an international peacekeeping force, possibly headed by NATO and backed by the Arab League, could achieve that goal.

When Syria’s conflict began, it looked political: A repressive regime was fighting to preserve its power and privileges. The opposition was fighting to end them. As 2012 wore on, however, the conflict looked increasingly sectarian: Communities of ordinary Alawites were targeted by Sunni Arab rebels, and a number of Alawite, Christian, and other minority-based militias started supporting the Alawite-based regime.

However, the main reason Syria’s minorities tend to support the regime is not their loyalty to Assad or hatred of Sunnis but their legitimate fear of the alternative. This is not surprising, given the historical discrimination and ostracism of Alawites under Sunni regimes before a 1970 coup brought Assad’s father to power, and the ruthlessness and sectarian tendencies displayed by Sunni rebels.

Of course, the United States and leading European governments are aware of this concern, and have long pushed the Syrian opposition to give meaningful assurances to the Alawites and Christians. The western-backed Syrian National Coalition (SNC) has promised full equality to minorities in a future Syria. This has been applauded by Western leaders, who are eager to avoid a repetition of the sectarianism that raged in Iraq from 2003-2006.

Despite its promises, however, the SNC maintains that regime loyalists are to be purged, the Assad security forces dismantled, and the 2.5 million-member Baath party (of which Assad is head) dissolved. Such an agenda, along with the SNC’s lack of legitimacy within Syria and dominance by the Muslim Brotherhood rather than secular groups, undermine the credibility of the security guarantees it promises.

As a result, Christians and Alawites fear that in a post-Assad political order they will be objects of bloody revenge and political marginalization. Herein lies one of the main reasons for the prolonged and bloody character of Syria’s Arab Spring.

To pull away Assad’s support base will therefore demand more tangible reassurances to the minorities in Syria. These are to be granted by the Syrian opposition to be sure, but they must be backed by Western powers. The US and Europe should offer the minorities a robust security guarantee in the form of an international peacekeeping force.

The current Western course of unconditionally supporting the rebels and hoping they will respect the rules of democracy will not alleviate the minorities’ fears. Instead it may push them into a corner where they will use any means necessary, including perhaps chemical weapons, in order to survive.

An effort to guarantee the safety of Syria’s minorities might even be supported by Iran, which along with Russia is the Assad regime’s main external backer. After all, Iran would presumably prefer to have the Alawites protected and participating in Syrian politics than to have a Sunni sectarian regime backed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If Iran can be persuaded to back a peace agreement, it can pressure Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, which is currently fighting for the Syrian government, to do the same.

In practice, it will be no easy sail to guarantee the safety of minorities in Syria. Obstacles include the expected collapse of state institutions, the militarization and radicalization of the Syrian opposition, and the meddling role of regional powers and neighbors. Lebanon’s bloody civil war in the 1970s-80s and the violence following withdrawal of the multinational force there provide a chilling reminder of the failures of international peacekeeping. Yet lessons from Bosnia and Kosovo show that peacekeeping forces can also be effective.

The question is: Do international leaders, particularly those in the West, have the stomach for another such mission in the Middle East? Let’s hope so. For the sake of peace in Syria and regional stability, leaders need to find the courage and the political agreement to implement this peacekeeping mission.

Thorsten Janus is associate professor of economics at the University of Wyoming. He focuses on conflict and governance in developing countries. Helle Malmvig is senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. Her expertise is in international politics and security in the Middle East and North Africa.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.