Since the Syrian uprising erupted more than a decade ago, tens of thousands
of Syrians have simply vanished. Protestors arrested at checkpoints, men and
women taken from their homes, regime opponents bundled into cars in the middle
of the day. Perhaps 100,000 people — maybe fewer, maybe many times more — have
disappeared, with their families having only the dimmest idea of where they are
or whether they are even alive.
اضافة اعلان
For the Assad
regime, forced disappearance has become a weapon of war and a powerful one at
that, inspiring fear, uncertainty and, for the families left behind, years of
questions.
In trying to
solve it, the UN is now reaching for a new tool, a new institution that would
coordinate the claims of Syrians inside and outside the country.
At the moment,
questions and claims about family members inside the country — mainly held by
the Assad regime, but also by a variety of groups operating on Syria’s
territory — are filed with a variety of NGOs and humanitarian organizations.
Some of these claims emerge when family members claim asylum abroad, or when
they are processed in refugee camps. Some are filed by family members who are
citizens of Arab or European countries.
Because of the
haphazard nature of the filings, and because the Assad regime is not sharing
information about who is in its prisons, there is no way to be sure who is
missing, nor to offer families information and support, nor even to assemble
sufficient information to be able to demand the Assad regime allows access to
places of detention.
Yet, while the
idea of a new mechanism has been percolating through international institutions
for some time, and while the idea now has support at the highest levels, with
the UN secretary-general releasing a report putting forward the idea in August,
and the UN Human Rights Council adopting a resolution on the mechanism just
last week, it is still an idea whose time has not arrived.
Not because it
would not inch forward the process of finding answers for the disappeared, but
because it would still put most of the power in the hands of the regime.
Any such
institution would only work at the whim of the regime. And for the Syrian
regime, disappearances are a weapon it will not easily give up.
Enforced
disappearances are not an oversight of a state fighting a war; they are one of
the regime’s most powerful weapons for silencing opposition and dissent.
The regime is
not the only group on Syrian territory accused of enforced disappearances,
almost every group from the Hayat Tahrir Al Sham to the Syrian Democratic
Forces to, of course, Daesh have been accused of it. But the overwhelming
number of those who have vanished have done so on regime-controlled territory.
The reason
disappearances are so valuable for pacifying the population is that making
someone vanish — say the father of a family — does not merely impact that
person, but has an impact on the entire family, who are dependent on the regime
for answers. Without any answers or a body to bury, the family cannot move on —
they cannot sell property, for example, or access insurance payments.
Which put the mechanism in the circular situation of the regime leading a mechanism meant to investigate the crimes of the regime — crimes which, by the way, the regime says did not happen.
That is not a
weapon the regime will easily give up, and certainly not if it means
essentially admitting to crimes that may be prosecutable. This is where the major
flaw with the idea of any new mechanism for disappearances becomes apparent.
Because actually making the mechanism work will, in fact, be up to the regime.
Even the UN
acknowledges this, noting in its report that, “until the new mechanism gains
the support of the [Syrian government], it would be subject to similar
territorial and access limitations as OHCHR”. This is a reference to the Office
of the High Commission for Human Rights, a UN body that is meant to report on
and monitor the situation for human rights within Syria, but that is in fact
confined to Beirut.
Indeed, not only
would the regime have to comply with the new mechanism for it to work, but it
would need to agree with the “international mandate” that the UN imagines this
new mechanism would have — something that even countries not engaged in a war
might baulk at, claiming an infringement of national sovereignty, given that
all those involved are citizens of Syria.
Worse, the
Syrian regime would need to sign off on whoever would lead this mechanism. The
UN report does not take a position on who should lead it (“or co-lead”), but it
is impossible to imagine that the regime would accept anything other than
Syrian control or the control of an allied country. This would put the
mechanism in the circular situation of the regime leading a mechanism meant to
investigate the crimes of the regime — crimes which, by the way, the regime
says did not happen.
Indeed, we can
already guess how the regime would handle this new mechanism, assuming it does
not ignore it altogether. The Syrian government does work with outside bodies,
for example the Red Cross — and while it has allowed humanitarian aid into the
country, and allowed international groups to operate, the regime deals with
them in a heavily politicized way, closing borders on a whim or turning back
convoys at checkpoints. That is exactly how the regime would handle any new
mechanism.
It is
unsurprising, after so many years of war, that the international community is
seeking any mechanism for bringing about some progress on the Syria file. But a
new mechanism is not the panacea. A new institution for Syria will not bring
answers to the thousands of disappeared. But a new government in Syria might.
Faisal Al Yafai is currently writing a book on the Middle East
and is a frequent commentator on international TV news networks. He has worked
for news outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC, and reported on the Middle
East, Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Twitter: @FaisalAlYafai. Syndication
Bureau.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
