GCC leaves a gulf in the Arab League

Yesterday I posted The league of unextraordinary gentlemen to comment on Saudi's exit from the Arab League's "Observer Mission" in Syria.

Today, the BBC (amongst others) lead with "Gulf Arab states to pull observers from Syria," following a decision by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE to withdraw their members from the Arab League's "Observer Mission".

I have to agree with the BBC's John Leyne when he commented that the "GCC's move is an illustration of how divided the Arab League is over the Syrian crisis". Surely the remaining members of the "Observer Mission" must be questioning the value of extending their observations for another month, especially as the Arab League is now considering "internationalising" (sic) their efforts by asking for a UN resolution to halt the violence in Syria.

Where I really take issue with the GCC is their reasons for quitting the mission. For example, a Kuwaiti newspaper stated that the GCC did not want its members of the "Observer Mission" to be "false witnesses to crimes committed against civilians". At this point I have to ask the GCC what they thought they were going to witness in Syria if not "crimes against civilians"? Considering the "Observer Mission" entered a country where the government is now reported to have killed 5000 of its own people, the fact that the GCC are citing not wanting to witness crimes against Syrian civilians is baffling. Perhaps some members of the Arab League expected their very presence to bring a swift and simple end to the violence. Instead, the Arab League has now confirmed that its collective concerned sideways glances, frowns and sighs are not going to bring an resolution to this complex situation. 

Another reason that the GCC gave for pulling their members from the Arab League "Observer Mission" was that Syria has rejected their recommendations for bringing an end to the violence. A (very!) brief analysis of these recommendations helps here. 

Item 1 - Asad should resign and hand power to a deputy...

Forgive me, but I can't believe that the Arab League genuinely thought Asad would accept their redundancy package without resistance. The fact the GCC members of the "Observer Mission" are quitting on the basis of Asad's refusal to agree with their recommendations highlights that the Arab League were hardly prepared to face the monumental task of facilitating peace in Syria. Instead of fighting back against Asad's rejection of their authority, the GCC Arab League members are already sensing failure and have decided to cut their losses and run.

At this point, I refer back to my comment yesterday: the Syrians need more than a half-heated effort by squeamish "Observers" to free them from Asad's grip. Unfortunately, whilst action is required, instead it seems that this league of unextraordinary gentlemen is gearing up to pass on the responsibility of bringing an end to Syrian violence to the United Nations Security Council. This does not fill me with optimism for, let's face it...when did a UN resolution ever bring about an end to violence in the Middle East? 

The league of unextraordinary gentlemen

Today it was widely reported that Asad's regime has rejected the Arab League's proposals to bring an end to the current violence in Syria. This does not come as a surprise. What comes as more of a surprise is that the Arab League were able to stir themselves into action sufficiently to reach a level of consensus and provide Asad with any form of proposal, considering the disagreements that have arisen between its members.

In a recent development, Saudi Arabia announced it was pulling out its representatives to the Arab League, citing Syria's inability to "keep its promises" as the main reason for exiting. (See Al Jazeera article.) With Al Jazeera reporting on Saudi's exit from the Arab League, some may think that this is a significant set back for the observer mission. The reality is quite different. Saudi's exit should not be seen as a significant step or otherwise, given how lacklustre the Arab League is as an international body.  

Despite, or perhaps in response, to Asad's rejection of the proposals the Arab League has decided it is necessary to continue their "observer mission", even though they have lost their Saudi delegate. And good for them, as observing is one thing the Arab League is good at. Unfortunately, it is converting these observations into meaningful action where precendent shows it fails.

I suspect that the House of Saud were hoping to cause a collective gasp by pulling out of this "observer mission". Yet, with the exception of the Al-Jazeera article mentioned above, the apparently dramatic move has gone largely unnoticed. However, the fact that Saudi has pulled out still deserves some criticism. Saudi Arabia likes to present itself as a leader of the Sunni Muslim Arab world, especially given the House of Saud's self-appointed role as Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques. Isn't it interesting that, despite taking on this role, they are still happy to walk out of an observer mission whose supposed purpose is to bring about an end to the violence at the hands of the Shia Asads against the very Sunni Muslims they claim to protect. Surely this forces us to question how seriously Saudi Arabia takes its international role? The House of Saud seems happy to accept the title, but flees at the first sign that action is required.  

I genuinely hope that the international community realise it is going to take more than this league of unextraodrinary gentlemen to resolve the situation in Syria. Observers they may be, leaders of action they are not. Syria needs the latter, desperately.