Difficulty in finding moral line on Syria

THE current attempt to broker peace in the Syrian conflict is loosely analogous to the situation which brought South Africa to peace talks in the 1990s.

At the core, the two main forces – the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the key Syrian forces resisting it – have been forced by the deadly escalation of the war, to find a way to resolve matters, even though the outcome is likely to unevenly weigh in favour of the Assad regime which is likely to remain in power.

With about 300 000 estimated dead, and millions displaced, there has to be a way in which to end the war, or the war may literally end the country and its people.

I use South Africa’s recent past of peace talks and negotiated settlement as a loose analogy where there seems to be no clear outright victory in sight, neither for the oppressive regime nor for those taking it on.

But that is as far as the analogy goes. In Syria the involvement of numerous external forces has produced contradictory narratives about where moral authority lies in this conflict.

The trouble with Syria is that it has become a site for a number of proxy battles between a myriad of neighbouring Middle Eastern states as well as non-state actors such as Hezbollah – on the side of the Assad regime and the Islamic State (ISIS) and a range of Islamist groupings fighting sometimes alongside the anti-Assad Syrian forces.

What began as a righteous revolt against the Assad regime in 2011 became a full-scale conflict because of cascading violence that has brought out opportunistic forces such as ISIS, who are trying to expand in the region, and defensive states such as Turkey into the mix.

According to Lancaster University politics researcher Simon Mabon, there have been about “60 different factions involved in the Syrian conflict”.

For outsiders who know little about the region, these many entanglements make it quite hard to know who the “good guys” are and who the “bad guys” are.

This was made all the more complicated by reports coming from the besieged city of Aleppo throughout November that it was anti-Assad forces who were committing atrocities that were inherently jihadist and terrorist in nature.

These reports, particularly from journalists such as the Canadian Eva Bartlett who was in Syria, painted a picture of the Assad regime as a stabilising force providing safety, food and stability for the citizens of Aleppo.

Analysts pointed out that the Aleppo reports were confusing because different parts of the city were under the control of different forces, and this led to a cauldron of mixed information and propaganda from opposing forces.

If you want to make sense of what is happening in Syria there are two things to keep in mind:

Firstly, there is a just and moral cause against the Assad regime, and it is important to find the voices of the Arab Spring activists from across the Middle East who understand how to contextualise the conflict and why it has spiraled into this mess.

Secondly, the rise of ISIS and regional jihadism has been a “surprise” toxifying factor in the whole conflict.

Exiled Syrian activist, Loubna Mrie, writing for The National UAE online, explains: “Massacres and government brutality led to many civilians embracing radical groups and their extremist message that the conflict was an existential one that required drastic measures such as ethnic cleansing and reciprocal butchery.

“The media doesn’t remember Syria’s non-violent demonstrations or political actions like street theatre that were organised by college students to advocate for democracy and freedom.

“For us, who were there at the beginning, protesting even while government soldiers shot people around us, we know what happened, we remember, and we understand the timeline.”

Whether activists such as Mrie agree with the current ceasefire or not, their contextual understanding of the crisis make them key informants in making a judgment of conscience on the Syrian crisis.

Nomalanga Mkhize lectures history at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University