No government soon

As the tradition wants it the next German government will not be formed in a few days. It usually takes weeks and this will not change now. As things stand presently it is more plausible than not that Merkel will seek a government partnership with the SPD’s socialists to form a grand coalition administration as they did during Merkel’s first term in the Chancellery. The last single party government in Germany was in 1957 under Conrad Adenauer, the first post war Chancellor governing the country from 1949 until 1963 and it is most unlikely this to be repeated now.

In any case Germany’s stance will not change regarding the two most important Eurozone issues that stand unresolved for months, the Greek enigma and the bank resolutions. Both of them triggered intense electoral confrontations more so over the Greek affair. The other thorny discussion, namely the structure of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) for failing banks, didn’t acquire the dimensions of a prime electoral theme. It was debated in more closed circles where Berlin reaffirmed its position for a decentralised SRM, which will not disseminate all over the Eurozone part of the liabilities to be left behind, after a major bank resolution is accomplished.

As for the Greek case, Germany has already accepted that this country will need a third aid package towards the mid of 2014, but this time it won’t be tens of billions. Incidentally also yesterday the auditors representing the troika of Greece’s lenders EU-ECB-IMF were in Athens meeting the Financial Minister Yiannis Stournaras. Reportedly they all agreed that Greece is bound to show this year a positive prime surplus albeit small in its fiscal accounts. They also accepted that the 2013 recession reading will be smaller than predicted.

At this point it must be reminded that on the condition Greece attains this year a fiscal surplus, its Eurozone partners and lenders have undertaken the obligation to cut down the country’s sovereign debt to sustainable levels. This issue was extensively debated during the pre-election period in Germany and it reached even the eight o’clock news bulletins. During this debate both Chancellor Merkel and her Finance Minister Schaeuble repelled the proposal of a straight haircut of the loans Greece owes to its Eurozone partners/lenders. To note here that the largest credits having been accorded to Athens came from Berlin. However both the two leading German politicians didn’t exclude the possibility of cutting down interest rates and extending pay off time, a proposal that amounts to a lesser overall burden for Greece but avoids a reduction of the principal.

All in all the triumphant Angela Merkel in her first comments on the electoral results yesterday night appeared very restricted, about the new government she is expected to present to Bundestag. She was careful not to exclude a possible grand coalition with the socialists of SPD. This prospect however doesn’t seem enough to change Germany’s positions on the two hot Eurozone issues, the Greek problem and the SRM. On the contrary Berlin would rather appear more unbending on its opinions.

Republished by permission from europeansting.com.

The funding announced by the EU is among the largest so far to the Syria crisis by any donor. The €400 million is expected to go towards the regional refugee response as well as humanitarian needs inside Syria. UNHCR understands that €150 million is allotted for development-related aid that includes support to communities hosting refugees and security for refugee camps.

“This funding is extremely important and very, very timely,” a press release quoted Guterres as saying. “Syria is fast becoming one of the most tragic, most dangerous, and largest crises since the end of the Cold War, and it is causing suffering on an enormous scale. The urgency of needs is difficult to overstate.”

The Syria situation has grown rapidly in recent months, with thousands of people fleeing across borders daily, and placing strain on neighbouring countries as they cope with the inflows. UN humanitarian agencies are expected to announce on Friday a major new funding push, among which will be an appeal for targeted funds in support of two of the largest refugee-hosting countries, Jordan and Lebanon.

In view of the extraordinary scale and nature of the crisis, and to prevent exhaustion of donor funding for the world’s other current displacement emergencies – among them Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and Myanmar – High Commissioner Guterres, along with his counterparts at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the World Food Programme and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), has in recent months appealed to governments worldwide to establish dedicated budgets for Syria.

Guterres yesterday reiterated this appeal. “We are facing a catastrophic situation in Syria, but we must not forget that on a daily basis thousands of people are being forcibly displaced in other regions and countries where there is conflict,” he said. “I encourage other donors to come forward as the European Union has done today.”

How to form a government

The centre left coalition under Pier Luigi Bersani has managed to acquire an absolute majority in the House of Representatives, but the 310 sits of the Senate are divided between the four parties in a way that nobody has an absolute majority. In the Italian political system a government has to have a majority in both Houses.

In any case the initiative is now in the hands of Bersani who needs a government partner with enough votes in the Senate, to be added to his own 121. This has to be either Silvio Berlusconi, whose centre right coalition got 117 Senate sits or Beppe Grillo’s “5 star movement” with its 54 senators. As for the outgoing Prime Minister, Mario Monti, his centre party got only 18 Senate sits, with a quite disappointing overall performance in this election. Probably it didn’t do any good to Professor’s political party the backing he got from Brussels. Berlin had the wisdom not to openly support him.

Low alarm in markets

It goes without saying that capital market fund managers have the most pressing and vested interests for a swift conclusion of negotiations over the formation of a government in Rome. It was encouraging however to see yesterday the bond market to regain confidence after some initial highs. Despite the large losses of 4.5% in the Milan stock exchange, the yield of 10 year benchmark Italian sovereign bond increased only by 31 basic units (0.31 percentage points), meaning that investors asked only for a small increase in the risk premium they demand, to continue holding such securities.

Understandably bond investors have all the reasons of the world to expect a swift solution in the Italian political stalemate, being it a grand coalition between Bersani and Berlusconi or a minor coalition between the centre left and Beppe Grillo. In either option the stakes will be very high. The first to know the news will have the prerogative in the market. Capital markets however kept their composure yesterday, but what if the new government comes out with a programme diverging widely from Monti’s austerity policies? In such a case the selloff of the Italian bonds could take large proportions. In reality markets are much more interested in the content of a possible government programme, rather than in the names undesigning it.

What if?

Returning to the introduction of this article the fact that the Italian debt has reached the region of the €2 trillion feels like a Damocles Sword above the entire Eurozone. If Italy starts looking incapable, of taking care of its own problems by itself, the Entire Eurozone will be again in peril. In such a case there will be no other solution than an intervention by the European Central Bank in the capital markets of Italy and Spain. The ECB can use its unlimited resources, in order to keep the lending interest rates for those two countries at sustainable levels. The central bank has already stated some months ago it could undertake such action. Why not now if developments reach a risky conjuncture? The volume of the Italian debt is so huge that in an emergency, there will be no other way available to refinance it, than with the freshly printed money of ECB’s.

In such an eventuality the Eurozone will face a long period of increased inflationary pressures. Such a prospect though apart from some negative effects on nominal idle wealth, will have positive repercussions on real growth, through the weakening of the euro parities. A cheaper euro however will help everybody to export more to third countries. Italy will be the first Eurozone economy to profit from such an eventuality.

If such a prospect materialises the entire atmosphere in the Eurozone will change and the euro will return to the low region of 1.25 with the dollar or maybe lower. This will be the best news for many including the Italian exporters and the tourism business. What else the Italian and all Eurozone exporters could pray for?

From the Europeansting.com [by permission]

Theoretically, this is a trilateral agreement between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. Given however, that the first two bodies were the powerhouses behind the “Two Pack” affair, it was only the legislature’s agreement that was missing. That is what Rehn and Noonan celebrated yesterday.

On the other side of the fence, the Parliamentarians didn’t seem to celebrate much. Actually, the Parliament’s rapporteur for the rules dealing with countries in significant financial trouble, Jean-Paul Gauzès (EPP, FR) found the opportunity to tell the Commission and the Council that the needed measures are being decided with a three years delay. He stressed that, “This crisis has shown us that half-hearted actions will not stop a fire. With such rules in place three years ago we would have avoided the problems currently experienced by some countries and which have threatened the whole Eurozone since it would have been possible to take early, clear and quick actions”.

Both the Commission and the Council representatives, Rehn and Noonan, didn’t seem to have had seriously taken into account the MEP’s observations about the three year delay and both of them went on celebrating the approval of the Parliament. At his point, it must be noted that the Commission and the Council are exclusively responsible for those three years of delay.

The “two pack”

The economic crises of the recent years showed that while European countries shared a common currency, their economies were not sufficiently coordinated. The ‘Two Pack’ is the response, introducing new rules to enforce stabilisers on Eurozone countries budgets. In 2011, six new sets of rules, the so- called ‘Six Pack’, came into force to strengthen economic coordination among EU member states. The 17 Eurozone countries, however, needed further rules – these are in the “Two Pack”.

The “Two Pack” consists of two regulations: one with special measures for monitoring and assessing plans of countries with high, excessive government deficits; and another with special measures for countries experiencing severe financial difficulties, such as those emerging from an EU-ECB-IMF programme.

Brussels über alles

The main difference between the “two” and the “six” packs is nothing less than the national sovereignty. The first one has been designed especially for the Eurozone and briefly concedes the approval of the national state budgets to the Brussels’ Commission. In short, government budgets in the 17 Eurozone countries will be submitted to national Parliaments after the Commission has given its approval.

This most important law, however, that the 17 legislatures are debating every year will be submitted after the Commission has approved the text. There goes out of the window, any democratic accountability, given that the Commission as a body is not accountable to the people, nor the Commissioners are elected by the people and probably do not always work for the people.

The MEPs

The European Parliamentarians didn’t chew their words. Elisa Ferreira (S&D, PT), rapporteur on the budgetary reporting requirements for all Eurozone countries, argued that this legislation needed to address a broader political context than one focused on fiscal discipline.

“Austerity is not delivering the desired results so it cannot be the only component of our response to the crisis. We need to adapt the medicine. We need to rebalance our short term objectives to better address growth and the vicious spiral of high debt-financing interest rates. Countries now making superhuman sacrifices need to know that their efforts are recognised and will be rewarded. This is why we have pushed hard to adapt the Commission’s original proposals”, she said.

The question is though, if those amendments the European Parliamentarians agreed with the Commission, are enough to protect the Peoples of Eurozone from the Commission’s discretional powers? In reality the amendments brought about by the Parliament are of minor importance not changing the substance of the “two pack”, which is the loss of national sovereignty.

As a matter of fact, the EU Parliamentarians depend greatly for their election on their home political party chiefs and governments and, as a result, they rarely push their objections to the end. European Parliament voting procedures are open for everybody to see who votes for what and this is not at all democratic.

In this case, the press release issued by the European Parliament contains this deplorable paragraph: “Where countries are asked to make substantial cuts, their efforts must not harm investments in education and healthcare, particularly in countries in severe financial difficulty”. As if today’s problems in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland were education and health care. It is a totally populist reference, to hide the real issue which is the huge income losses for tens of millions of people.

In short, the green light from the European Parliament for the “two pack”, without any changes in its basic provisions, opened a new era in the European Union, of less and less democratic accountability and more and more democratic deficits. And this without a new Treaty being signed or anything that could signal fundamental changes and attract the attention of the many. Everything was done away from the eyes of the people in a freezing Tuesday morning in central Brussels. In reality, the Peoples of the EU are now pushed into something quite different from what they knew so far, without much discussion or a referendum. Nobody in Brussels speaks any more about plebiscites.

From the Europeansting.com [by permission]

But global FDI nevertheless declined by eight per cent in the first half of 2012 as economic recovery suffered new setbacks in the second quarter of the year, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), stated in its tenth Global Investment Trend Monitor. In the developing world, FDI inflows decreased by five per cent.

“The slow and bumpy recovery of the global economy, weak global demand and elevated risks related to regulatory policy changes continue to reinforce the wait-and-see attitude of many transnational companies toward investment abroad,” UNCTAD said in a press release on the report.

“UNCTAD’s longer term projections still show a moderate rise,” it added. “However, the risk of further macroeconomic shocks in 2013 can impact FDI inflows negatively.”

The report finds that global FDI fell $61 billion, with the decline mainly caused by a drop of $37 billion in inflows to the US and a fall of $23 billion in inflows to BRIC countries – Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China.

China nevertheless emerged as the world’s largest recipient of FDI in the first half of 2012, followed by the United States, the report notes.

It adds that FDI flows to the US might be stronger in the second half of 2012 because the value of cross-border mergers and acquisitions in the third quarter of the year was “double those of the first half of the year,” and some further acquisitions are “already taking place or announced in the fourth quarter.”

One example cited by the report is the acquisition by the Japanese telecommunication company SoftBank of US firm Sprint Nextel for more than $20 billion. This will mark the largest investment ever by a Japanese company, the report says.

The position held by developing countries was made possible by the “steep fall” in FDI flows to the US and a “moderate decline” in flows to the EU, the report notes.

“For the first time, developing economies alone accounted for a half of the global total,” the report states, emphasizing it distinguished developing countries from the so-called “transition” economies, such as those of South-East Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

“But while flows to Latin America and Africa rose, those to developing Asia decline,” the report adds.

“Investment leads economic growth but the current trends of investment flows to developing countries, particularly to Asia, are worrisome and the challenge for channelling FDI into key development sectors such as infrastructure, agriculture and the green economy remains daunting,” UNCTAD’s Secretary-General, Supachai Panitchpakdi, said in the news release.

In developed countries, the rise in flows to Europe and developed countries was not enough to compensate for the decline in flows to North America, the report says.

Compared to the full-year forecast of FDI inflows published in July, UNCTAD says it now projects that FDI flows will, at best, level-off in 2012 at slightly below $1.6 trillion.

The first part was devoted to arguments on regional operation, the real economy and production networks, as well as the characteristics of the economic integration in East Asia. The second part was about the European Union, the debt crisis and the necessity of political leadership addressing financial reform to overcome the crisis. Then views were exchanged on East Asian economy, definitions of East Asia, the prospects of the Chinese economy, and the implication of the economic integration in East Asia for Europe etc.

Interestingly, all participants agreed that political will is the most important factor for crisis management and further economic integration, both in Europe and in East Asia. While I was writing this, it was already known that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel is to visit Athens tomorrow (Oct. 9). Besides the obvious feelings of insecurity and the patriotic symbolisms the visit will produce for all Greeks and particularly Athens inhabitants, I could not but consider the obvious: a political solution is on the way. I am not sure whether it will prove to be beneficial towards “further economic integration” or it is a way the German leader to appear bailing out Greeks on her own; again, in political terms.

The stalemate with the troika has to do with trust. Troika head representatives have been called many things in this country, but being inconsistent is not one of them. Since the beginning of negotiations in 2010, troika people have been steadily arguing for two parallel courses of action: cutting expenses and forwarding structural changes (to liberalise the market, invite competition and boost growth). Cuts did occur, reforms never happened. Either due to political cost or unionist phobia, structural changes have never been properly dealt with, remaining suppressed by partisan interests and clientelistic concerns. Hence today’s impasse.

Real growth (not the one driven by consumption and loans), economic integration, daring steps forward towards the unification of countries that share common interests, truly need political courage. Politicians need to be brave and think ahead; what they also need is the support of their peoples by regaining their trust.

This is where politics draw its power, people. Either in East Asia or in Europe, political solutions remain political when people are willing to play along. If they do not agree with politicians’ moves, then the latter are on their own, alienating themselves from society, thus failing to serve the [perception of] common goal.

Greek police and other security forces are bracing for Angela Merkel’s visit tomorrow. Demonstrations, sit-ins and heroisms in front of the German embassy in Athens are already scheduled, perhaps accompanied by the occasional riot activity. This is people’s way to express their outrage but hardly constitutes “solution” material. Even if the package is agreed, the symbolism for the government will be hard to read.

All participants in Japanese Embassy’s symposium agreed that political solutions are the way to move forward. I would add that political solutions should be decided by people themselves. If more integration is the way to go (in Europe and East Asia) then people (instead of politicians) should be asked whether they are willing to turn their countries into peripheral geographical entities of a centrally managed bureaucracy.

Finally, although Europe is much older in the integration game, I would say that the chances for real progress in the integration field lie more on the East Asia side. Both philosophically and technologically, they have all necessary elements to put forward a whole new paradigm of economic integration, based on 21st century politics; namely based on elements of fairness, honest cooperation, advanced sense of social responsibility. In order something like this to succeed, it should be grassroots; and on the web. Then mainstream politics could follow, framing the drive with ‘political solutions’. In the social networks era, cross-country political initiatives need to start from the base.

On-going online democracy could prove much more powerful than any old fashioned political initiative; Europe needs to understand this as well.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of Alyunaniya.com

I understand those concerns. And I agree that some of the efforts seem unfair. But I ask people to recognise the other alternatives which will be much more difficult for Greece and will affect even more the most vulnerable in the Greek society. So this is why it is the right approach to ask Greece to reform, to increase its competitiveness to have a viable future, irrespective of the crisis. You, in Greece, with our support, need to rebuild your country, your structures, your administration and your economy to increase the competitiveness of Greece. And the best hope of a return to growth and job creation is inside the euro area. Staying in the euro is the best chance to avoid worse hardship and difficulties to the Greek people, namely for those in a more vulnerable position

The Prime Minister has assured me that the coalition government will respect the commitments under the second programme and will speed up the key structural reforms that are needed, including the privatisation process and of course, also the reforms in the public administration, for instance, the reform against the tax evasion.

The key word here is: deliver. Deliver, deliver, deliver. The main issue is implementation to deliver results. To maintain the trust of European and international partners, the delays must end. Words are not enough. Actions are much more important. Following my meeting with Prime Minister Samaras, I am reassured that this delivery will happen.

In return I have been unequivocal that the European Commission will stand by Greece. I am here as a friend of Greece. I have repeatedly stated that Greece can make it, together Greece and Europe will make it. Greece is part of the European family and the euro area and we intend to keep it that way. All the heads of state and government of the euro area have stated in the clearest possible terms that Greece should stay in the euro as long as the commitments made are honoured. And there has been solidarity towards Greece.

The European Union and the wider international community have shown unprecedented solidarity with the people of Greece. We need a new consensus on reform and development so that Greece can grow again for the benefit of its citizens…”

“The last weeks have been a time of heightened tension in the European Union and in the Euro area in particular. It is now clear that the world expects Europe to commit to credible and concrete solutions to become more integrated and more united. Indeed this is now a real systemic global necessity if we are to ensure worldwide financial and economic stability.

We are now in a defining moment for European integration. We must articulate the vision of where Europe must go, and a concrete path for how to get there. I am not sure whether the urgency of this is fully understood in all the capitals of the European Union.

We must be realistic in what we can expect from one single summit of European leaders. But I believe this European Council can – and indeed must – give strong impetus to our growth agenda, through concrete measures to stimulate the economic activity, while also setting out a longer-term process to build a stronger, genuine Economic and Monetary Union.”

Referring to immediate measures, namely measures to stimulate the economy, Barroso said “we need both fiscal consolidation and growth. This growth can only come from the combination of sound public finances, deep structural reforms and targeted investment. We should not forget trade, internal and external, that IS, and must remain, an important source of European growth.

We expect Member States to agree to a “comprehensive package” of growth measures. These are significant measures that the Commission has been proposing over the last year and that will be backed by Europe’s Heads of State and Government, for example the increase on the EIB lending capacity, project bonds and a more targeted use of the EU structural and cohesion funds.

In addition, Member States should endorse, in full, the Country Specific Recommendations that the Commission set out on 30 May. These reforms are about changing head-on practices that impede our competitiveness and stop our markets working as they should.

The measures in this growth compact are major decisions that will tackle the roots of Europe’s problems, while at the same time oiling the wheels of the economy through targeted investment to get it moving again. Indeed, to complement the crucial reform effort, we must invest in projects and in areas where money is badly needed to spur growth.”

On 23 May, the European Council gave a mandate to its President, in collaboration with Jose Barroso, the President of the Eurogroup and the President of the European Central Bank, to present a vision for the future of a more deep and integrated Economic and Monetary Union.

Barroso said: “the report that we will present at the European Council is the start of the process towards deeper integration with a focus on those Member States which share the single currency. It builds on the bold efforts towards greater stability, coordination and growth that the European Union has taken since the start of the crisis. It seizes the moment to put these efforts in the perspective of a full Economic and Monetary Union, in particular the Euro area, and identifies the main building blocks of such an endeavour. It is a concrete demonstration of our unwavering commitment to the single currency and to the European project.

This integration process should be progressive. It should start with steps that can be taken immediately without a Treaty change. These would lead to longer term steps that may require such changes. At its heart will be a guiding concept – that greater solidarity and greater responsibility must go hand in hand: each step towards further solidarity would be accompanied by a corresponding step towards greater responsibility. At its heart will be a guiding method – the Community method that ensures democracy, legitimacy, accountability and inclusion.

What is at stake is not only the economic integration, it is also the overall economic confidence in the Euro area, and indeed, our commitment to the European project. This is why we need to be bold and define the way forward.

For a genuine Economic and Monetary Union to be established, I think that we need a “banking union”, a “fiscal union” and further steps towards a “political union”.”

New pre-election period that followed May 6 poll intensified the dilemmas and increased the percentages of the two major parties. According to Kathimerini, opinion polls indicate that ND and SYRIZA are running neck and neck for first place, which would grant the winning party extra 50 seats in Parliament. This would be vital for forming a coalition government. Neither party is likely to win an outright majority. PASOK is expected to come in third place, with anti-bailout Independent Greeks, Democratic Left, the Communist Party and Golden Dawn also passing the 3% Parliament threshold.

According to ProtoThema.gr, unpublished polls run by political parties in recent days reflect a thriller situation in the electoral body, as the differences between ND and SYRIZA are within the limit of statistical error, while undecided voters seem exceeding 15%. This fluidity creates a climate of uncertainty before the final outcome of the elections, as most survey companies record a meager lead for ND, while others believe that the social dynamic, if expressed at the ballot box, will give the victory to SYRIZA.

For the international community, the challenge of today’s election is Greece to manage to form a government in the coming days that formulate conditions justifying some hope for the country.

According to Bloomberg, European Union and International Monetary Fund have insisted that the conditions of the EUR 130 billion bailout accord agreed in March must be accepted fully by a new government or funds will be cut off, driving Greece into bankruptcy.

Over the last few weeks we’ve been bombarded with “Responsibility to Protect” rhetoric; we’ve been reminded of the (U.S.) need to intervene in Syria to weaken Iran, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas; we’ve been told of all the positive effects a new Syrian regime would have for the region; we’ve been pointed out how useful regional countries (e.g. Turkey) would be in a potential intervention; how Russia would care, but not so much as to cause problems, and so on. It is as if everyone stopped thinking rationally and stopped weighing the costs and benefits. To be honest though, depending on one’s perspective of the situation, the costs and benefits could be entirely different. What would be the objective of an intervention, really? Would it be Iran? Would it be Hamas and Hezbollah? Would it be the Russian interests in the Middle East? Would it be the protection of the Syrian people under the “Responsibility to Protect” umbrella? Or is the “Responsibility to Protect” just the moral cover-up – and the ultimate immoral means – for the achievement of all previous, and more, objectives? I would vote for the latter. In any case, an intervention – if it were to take place – should be about the people. But the fact is that there is no scenario in which the Syrian people – or the region, for that matter – would benefit from an intervention. There are at least five main reasons for that, briefly presented below, which are linked to the simplifications put forward by the intervention advocates.

1. The perspective: Most analyses about Syria come from a U.S., or European, (“moral”) perspective. It is easy to say “intervene” when you live half a world away (or if you are Israeli). It is easy not just because of the long distance (U.S.) but because of the geopolitical opportunity as well (for the U.S., E.U., and Israel). The “Iran-Syria-Hezbollah” triangle, and their comrade, Hamas, have been bothering the West for quite some time. Further, the Syrian crisis emerged at a time when the “westerners” are having serious problems with Iran and its nuclear program. How does that have anything to do with the suffering of the Syrian people, and how does that entail a plan for a just post-intervention transition in Syria? It doesn’t.

2. The Russian factor: Syria has been compared to Kosovo and to how Russia, despite its criticism of the NATO bombings, did not react in 1999. However, the U.S. is not the superpower it used to be, and Russia is now over the post-Soviet/post-traumatic stress. Moreover, Syria is very important for the Russian interests in the Middle East; much more important than Libya was. Downplaying the Russian factor, is a crucial mistake; one that would eventually have real costs only for the people of Syria.

3. Turkey: There is a widespread misconception that Turkey wants to intervene in Syria or that it would be unconditionally supportive of a western intervention. But what about the Kurds and the PKK in particular? Are you not seeing the mounting violence within Turkey and the government’s efforts for a political solution? Don’t you think that if Turkey wanted to intervene in Syria it would have already done so? Yes, Turkey wants Assad to go, but it realizes the dangers that come with an intervention. What Turkey is concerned about right now is the settlement of the Syrian crisis without further destabilization and without an intervention – which would again lead to destabilization. If Turkey, along with other regional countries, were to intervene in Syria, it would have to be under certain conditions: Turkey would have to take the lead, it would have to somehow justify the intervention to Iran so as to avoid another confrontation, and Russia would have to back down, or at least adopt a neutral stance. These are no simple conditions. And again, they have nothing to do with the moral need of helping the Syrians.

4. The “history of intervention”: Assuming there were no problems at all; what “successful” case of intervention should the West keep in mind as it carries out its intervention in Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Not to mention the Balkans. It is true that, for example, Saddam and Gaddafi are gone, while some argue that Iraq is now “a better place”. Need I remind you, though, that the “reconstruction” of Iraq was not the reason of the intervention in the first place? And is it so hard to see that Iraq is anything but a stable state? It is ridden by sectarian problems and the indirect control of external – mainly regional – powers. At least the Libyans called for an intervention, although the result is still a “new Iraq” in the making: secessionist movements, tribal fights, etc. It is time to realize that there is more to it than just toppling a dictator, which, again, is irrelevant to the real and long-term needs of the people, but rather relates to geopolitics and economics.

5. Operations: The final reason why there cannot be a military intervention, favorable for the Syrian people, regards the operational dimension of the debate. Indeed, the Free Syrian Army has no significant territory under its authority; its fight and man power is limited whereas the regime is still strong (unlike the case of Libya). The revolts have already spilled over into Lebanon which means that an intervention would not leave Hezbollah indifferent. Iran has already showed its support to the Syrian regime while it has been reported that arms are being transferred from Iran to the Syrian government through Iraq. The Russian interests have already been mentioned, let alone the reports for alleged Russian military assistance to the Assad regime. An intervention could easily initiate a large scale proxy, or even direct, war between all these actors. This would in no way benefit the Syrians or the countries of the region. The possibility alone of such a development should be enough for people to stop thinking of a military intervention in Syria.

Although no one outside Syria has the right to speak on behalf of the Syrians, it seems that an intervention would cause more harm than good. Because of what has been analyzed above, articles, as well as politicians, that advocate intervention in Syria, are rather dangerous. There is much more at stake here than just the western/U.S. interests in the Middle East, or the regional balance of power. The objective is the long-term well-being of the Syrian people. Again, unquestionably Assad must go. Preferably the infrastructure of the regime must go with him; but this is very difficult as the cases of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Libya, showed. There has to be a political/diplomatic solution which will result in regime change. Alternatively, if the Syrian revolt were to become a revolution, then, I humbly believe, the Syrians should be the ones to take the lead and be in control.

—

Zenonas Tziarras is a PhD Candidate in International Politics at the University of Warwick, UK, and a Junior Research Scholar at Strategy International. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization.