Syria: no military option, no No Fly Zone, even the word “NATO” becomes taboo

(BRUSSELS2) As soon as we talk about a possible military operation for Syria, the response comes from European officials: “ Syria is not Libya". And when we go deeper, we can see that the NATO operation in Libya has left undeniable traces on the international level which seem to be blocking any further progress on Syria today.

The Libyan precedent weighs

A seasoned European diplomat confirmed this today. " The Libyan precedent is still present in everyone's mind. If for some (NATO, the countries that are part of it), the operation in Libya was considered a success and achieved its objectives; for many other countries, this is not the case. When you question certain Arab countries, the emerging countries, you hear a different story. There is a lot of reserve. » And the consequences are being felt today. THE " declarations of several countries (China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, India...) in New York » on the draft resolution drawn up on Syria testify to this. " These countries fear a new illustration of a strategy aimed at regime change. »

No military option, no conditions met

Any " military option is on the table ". Even the idea of ​​a No Fly Zone, a minimum level of military intervention, is " not currently a point of debate “, specifies our interlocutor. During the discussion on the draft Syria resolution at the UN, this point did not appear, " At no moment ” in the project, nor “ was not considered ". Moreover, at the political level, no condition present in the Libyan situation is fulfilled. For Libya, there had been clear conditions laid down at European Council level: a request from the countries of the region, in particular the Arab League; a UN resolution authorizing it; an operation limited to the needs observed on site. For Syria, there is none of that. " The Arab League never asked for anything. The draft resolution calling for an end to the violence and a political process made no mention of the No Fly Zone. Nobody asked for a military operation or asked for the use of military means. In short, close the ban...

The taboo word NATO

And even the word NATO is taboo on the diplomatic level. If the EU has thus announced " regular contact with the Arab League and consultations daily with the United States, on the other hand, it refuses any contact with NATO. " We did not have contact specifies this diplomat who wants to avoid any confusion. " We avoid any mention of the international organization mentioned. (Because) this is one of the real difficulties we have with the Chinese and Russians. Any reminder of the Libyan operation arouses a certain "reservation", including among our Arab friends ».

No arms delivery

As for the delivery of arms to the insurgents, this does not appear to be the path followed by the EU. " There are indeed arms deliveries that cross the border. We received clear indications. » But we don't want to go in that direction. " Going towards arms deliveries in an official way is to maintain the civil war”.

Commentary: In these remarks, there is real diplomacy. But also an observation. The operation in Libya was a military success. But the diplomatic price to pay is now proving to be greater than its initiators had anticipated. Russia, in particular, China, too, no longer want to appear as rump states according to general opinion. Russia's opposition on the Syrian issue is fundamental. In Moscow, we do not want a Libyan scenario at any price. And if the abandonment of the mode does not seem to pose too much problem, in fact, with the Russian mode, it is the method which matters. It is out of the question to let Westerners act alone. It is Russia that must appear as the God from the machine of the Syrian situation. It is a question not only of prestige but of power.