The Bosnia dilemma: What are the implications of the Homs “humanitarian evacuation” in Syria?

by Rhodri C. Williams

The evacuation of civilians trapped, shelled and nearly starved by the Assad regime’s siege of the center of Homs is an operation that will undoubtedly save many innocent lives. Not incidentally, it is also one of the few areas of concrete progress that appears to have emanated from the Geneva talks between the regime and the opposition, which just entered a laborious second round. But it is hard to avoid a sense of unease about the operation and the signals it sends about the course of the conflict in Syria.

Tellingly, the evacuation deal was rolled out between Geneva I and II, with the opposition apparently caught unawares. This ambiguous start might reasonably be seen as signaling yet another iteration of a high stakes game being played by a discredited regime with its back to the wall. As in the case of last summer’s chemical weapons attack – which made the Assad regime the ‘partner’ in an international effort to dispose of its own illegal weapons – there is a whiff of deliberate atrocities in Homs being used to gain leverage.

Concerns have been expressed on at least three levels. First, the evacuation presents the remaining ‘fighting age’ men trapped in Homs with a Hobson’s choice – remain in the besieged center after the ceasefire expires and continue to face starvation and shelling, or surrender to the tender mercies of the regime’s intelligence forces, who continue to hold some 200 men arrested as they joined the humanitarian exodus from the city. This against the backdrop of continued unresolved questions questions about the fate of men starved out of the Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya last year:

Rebels have rejected offers to evacuate women and children in the past because of concerns, based on experience, about what might happen to men who are left behind. Dozens of men were detained and disappeared after a similar deal made last year in Mouadamiya, near Damascus.

In light of graphic recent evidence that a single detention center in Syria had tortured 11,000 imprisoned men and boys to death, it is hardly surprising that comparisons have been made between the evacuation of Homs and the 1995 fall of Srebrenica in the Bosnian conflict. As in Srebrenica, the means and motive exist. Moreover, the international humanitarian community is caught in a similarly impossible role, trying to protect civilians in a situation where it will not have the power to do more than act as a witness if the regime is determined to seek a final reckoning with its opponents in Homs.

Which leads to the second concern. For some time now, observers have speculated that the regime may fall back on creating an ethnically cleansed rump state connecting Damascus with coastal areas dominated by Assad’s Alawite sect. The burning of the property registry in Homs last summer was widely taken as a sign that the current offensive was meant to permanently remove Sunni Arab populations opposed to the Assad regime from the city. As reported in the Guardian:

All property records for Homs were destroyed in a fire earlier this month at the office of the city’s land registry and residents fear they can no longer enforce a claim to their land and homes.

“What else could be going on?” asked one resident who refused to be identified. “This is the most secure area of the city and it is the only building that has been burned. A conspiracy is underway.”

Former staff at the office say the records existed only on paper and had not yet been digitalised. Eyewitnesses in the Bab al-Hood district where the building is located, and several employees, reported seeing flames on the higher floors of the building on 5 July, where the files were archived, while regime forces were positioned on lower floors.

Homs and the surrounding province is seen as essential to the war in Syria and to any plan to create a safe haven for Alawites if the Syrian state collapses, as it geographically links largely Alawite areas on the Syrian coast and Shia areas in Lebanon‘s Bekaa Valley.

At around the same time, the Telegraph reported on the systematic looting and destruction of Sunni Muslim homes in areas around Homs captured by troops and militias loyal to the regime:

After each campaign …  Alawite civilians and loyalist paramilitaries from the National Defence Force have stormed the newly recaptured towns and villages, looting Sunni homes and often setting them on fire, with the apparent aim of ensuring that the owners have nothing left to return to.

Most recently, Human Rights Watch used satellite imagery to document the systematic demolition of entire neighborhoods cleared of their inhabitants in parts of Hama and Damascus associated with the opposition. Human Rights Watch Researcher Ole Solvang observed tartly that:

Wiping entire neighborhoods off the map is not a legitimate tactic of war. These unlawful demolitions are the latest additions to a long list of crimes committed by the Syrian government.

Reflecting the fact that fighting for territory has intensified all along the strategic corridor between Damascus and the coast during the Geneva talks, Syrian observers have claimed the highest three week death toll since the conflict began. It is difficult not to see the current situation as a potential endgame during which whatever remaining inhibitions the parties have may drop in a push to create facts on the ground. If Homs falls, the razing of opposition neighborhoods is a virtual certainty, and abuses and massacres a stark likelihood.

In this context, the role of the UN in evacuating the last parts of Homs still inhabited by Sunni Muslims places the UN in another dilemma so familiar from Bosnia that it has overshadowed all subsequent “humanitarian evacuations”. As described by Kirsten Young in 2001, attacks on Bosnian civilians in the early 1990s placed the UNHCR in the position of assisting threatened minorities to safety in a manner that simultaneously provided logistical support to the perpetrators of war crimes. She cites then-High Commissioner Sadako Ogata, who starkly phrases the dilemma:

…if you take these people you are an accomplice to ethnic cleansing. If you don’t, you are an accomplice to murder.

This raises a third issue related to the utility of conventional humanitarian response in situations like Syria where the parties evince so little interest in playing by the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL). Ben Parker, writing in the last issue of Humanitarian Exchange, described the Syrian war as having “tested conventional humanitarian practice up to and beyond its limits, and exposed some uncomfortable truths about helping civilians in conflict”:

International bodies routinely call for ‘unimpeded humanitarian access’, but in reality there are few places in the world where aid workers are less free to move around, assess needs and deliver services independently. Humanitarian action in Syria is plagued by insecurity, bureaucracy, manipulation, intimidation and limited operational capacity. … The humanitarian principles which underpin the Western aid system are under extraordinary pressure. … Conventional humanitarianism is besieged.

Reflecting this reality, UN Humanitarian Chief Valerie Amos has been both praised and pilloried for having discouraged condemnation of atrocities in Syria in an effort to avoid alienating the regime and losing any hope of access to vulnerable populations. Frustration boiled over last Fall as human rights advocates accused Ms. Amos of giving the Assad regime “a free pass for mass murder” in exchange for only the most perfunctory cooperation in allowing assistance to besieged civilians.

However, the recent spike in negotiations and fighting have either emboldened Ms. Amos or convinced her there is nothing to lose by throwing caution to the wind. In an interview with the BBC, she accused all parties to the conflict of “flagrant violations” and questioned the utility of the entire model of humanitarian engagement currently applied in Syria:

“All parties are failing in their responsibility to protect civilians. We understand that a war is going on, but even wars have rules.”

Speaking to the BBC’s Nick Bryant, Baroness Amos said a UN-brokered ceasefire deal which has allowed civilians to be evacuated from the besieged Old City of Homs in the past few days did not offer a long-term solution.

“It’s 14 months since I raised the alarm in the Security Council about Homs. We managed to get 1,200 people out of Homs, we managed to get food and medicines in for 2,500 people,” she said.

“If it’s going to take 14 months to do that when you’ve got 250,000 people in besieged communities, when you’ve got over three million people in hard-to-reach communities, I really find it very difficult to say that this is a [right] model.”

To be fair to Ms. Amos, there is little more she can do absent explicit backing from the UN Security Council. But here, Russia has dug its heels in again, seemingly able to detect pretexts for international intervention in even the most straightforward demand for humanitarian access to civilian populations. Alarmingly, Russia has also cited its role in negotiating the dubious Homs ceasefire as an alibi. As reported today in the BBC:

Meanwhile, sharp words were exchanged by Washington and Moscow after Russia again objected to a draft UN Security Council resolution – this time, one that would call on all sides to allow aid workers access across Syria.

That was criticised by US President Barack Obama, who called Russia a “holdout” and suggested that by blocking the resolution it too was responsible for “starving civilians”, along with the Syrian government.

A Russian foreign ministry spokesman dismissed the criticism as a “biased distortion”, highlighting Russia’s role in helping achieve the ceasefire in Homs and insisting Russia was as concerned about the humanitarian situation in Syria as Washington.

As the parties to the Syrian conflict edge around the contours of a political solution in Geneva, the country is in a state of bloody dissolution, with Homs as its crucible. The vital question now is whether the talks are the solution to the destruction of Syria or the pretext under which it will be accomplished.

Advertisements

5 responses to “The Bosnia dilemma: What are the implications of the Homs “humanitarian evacuation” in Syria?

  1. Something of an update. On Sunday, the Geneva talks collapsed, with Lakhdar Brahimi implicitly assigning blame to the regime for their refusal to discuss a political transition, but doing so more carefully than, e.g. John Kerry, presumably so as not to foreclose future talks:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/kerry-assad-supporters-must-press-regime-to-end-obstruction

    In the meantime, Lyse Doucet provides a day-by-day review of developments in the course of a Homs evacuation seems to have taken on a life independent of the political negotiations:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/haunted-survivors-of-homs-emerge

    The end of the report addresses the issue of men escaping from Homs who have been taken for questioning, beginning with when the latest batch to arrive finish their first meal after evacuating:
    —————————–
    “When their meals finished, all the men were taken to the al Andalus school, a makeshift informal detention centre but also a shelter. Those with families all went together.

    As the clock struck midnight on Wednesday, UN officials were at that school along with the governor to see how the men were faring, and to send a message that the UN was watching this process carefully.

    Outside Syria, there was a rising hue and cry over the expected detention and mistreatment of the men. And there was anguished debate in UN circles over whether this was the kind of deal they should have be part of.

    Barazi kept insisting most would be freed, but some would be put on trial for “terrorism, criminal activities and sabotage”. Hillo said that the next time efforts would be made to include the International Committee of the Red Cross, mandated to deal with prisoners and their rights. But he said this was a deal to save lives that “had to be done””

  2. Amazing report by Lyse Doucet again, this time having been on an extended tour of the al-Andalus school where the men evacuated from Homs are being held, “re-educated” by the personal fiat of Homs Governor Talal al-Barazi, and interrogated on the fighters remaining inside the Old City.

    No clear sense of what the future will bring, with ICRC having publicly condemned the arrangement for lack of guarantees of IHL compliance, but the UN determined to continue monitoring and the Governor apparently personally committed to reintegrating the detainees on the regime’s terms (there are some uncomfortable echoes here of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi’s personal initiative to ‘rehabilitate’ captured Islamist insurgents in the late 2000s).

    Here is the link:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26225458

    And here is an extended quote of some of the most revealing observations:
    ——————-
    When the Governor of Homs, Talal al-Barazi, sweeps into the school with his entourage, I ask him what will happen to the men.

    “I believe most of the men will be cleared or be given an amnesty,” he declares.

    “They will be free to go wherever they wish. For those who are not, they will be tried in civilian courts.”

    Then he quickly steps outside, grabs a microphone, and takes a seat at a wooden table to address the large crowd of men now seated cross-legged in the courtyard.

    “We are all on the same side; we are all Syrian,” he tells them in an impassioned speech rooted in his conviction that the road to peace goes through country, God, and President Bashar al-Assad.

    The governor has made this operation in the Old City his personal mission. He’s been a constant presence, at all hours, throughout the evacuation. Said to be backed by the president himself, he’s reportedly stood up to groups like the pro-government paramilitary National Defence Force, whose members are known to have attacked the aid convoys they see as freeing and feeding their enemy.

    The man who runs the facility is, literally, the face of this war. A bullet pierced his cheek during the ferocious battles in the Homs neighbourhood of Babr Amr.

    With a sunken cheek, and twisted mouth, he presides with a forceful presence over daily “re-education” classes on everything from religion to reconciliation. On the day we visit, he’s flanked by white turbaned mullahs who’ve come to instruct the men about the true meaning and mission of Islam.

    When he takes the microphone, his speech is peppered with both wit and warnings as he urges the fighters not to take up arms again.

    A few young men in the front row clap with approval; those further back stand stone-faced, arms crossed.

    On the top floor of the school, we walk down the hallway where wooden desks are piled high. Through glass windows of empty classrooms, we can see men being questioned.

    Several tell us, off camera, that the interrogations involving police and the intelligence services also focus on gathering information on the rebel fighters still in the Old City, including the top commanders.

    It’s another reason why many are uneasy about what was billed as a “humanitarian pause”.

    The International Committee of the Red Cross has publicly criticised a deal which did not include a “firm commitment from all sides to respect the basic principles of international humanitarian law”.

    UN officials are present at the al-Andalus school throughout the day, and also visit at night. They’ve done spot checks on people who’ve been released. It’s clear their presence, including some difficult conversations, is making a difference.

    “The government wants to make a good example of this case,” the UN’s Resident Humanitarian Coordinator Yacoub el Hillo told me. “We are hoping they will live up to their commitment.”

    The al-Andalus school is a world away from Syria’s notorious detention centres. But there are growing concerns about this process, including questions about the exact “charges” men will face.

    We’re told by some men that lower-ranking officials threatened them with harsher action once the “people with blue helmets” leave.

    Both the UN and the governor say they’re not leaving.

    But most of the men still aren’t sure when they will get out of here, and where they will be free to go.

  3. Pingback: Talks collapse in Geneva, reconciliation blooms in Syria? | TerraNullius

  4. Pingback: TN mellows out at five | TerraNullius

  5. Pingback: Article on HLP rights and durable solutions in GPC Digest | TerraNullius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s