It’s not too late to save Syria’s revolt
In fact, the time is right to begin a candid and serious review of the situation, and take constructive measures before life deteriorates further
Marine Le Pen, the French extreme right’s presidential candidate, clearly summed up how the West regards the Syrian revolt, which erupted six years ago. In an interview with Al Arabiya TV channel, she replied to a question about her view of Bashar Al Assad by saying: “If I were to choose between Al Assad and Daesh, I shall choose Al Assad”. This is a well-known fact among the sponsors and defenders of the Syrian regime. Thus, in order to save the regime it was necessary to derail the popular uprising, destroy its moderate armed and unarmed elements, and deprive the true ‘revolutionaries’ of all kinds of support and protection.
This is how we have reached the current ‘ideal’ scenario. The Syrian people are now out of the equation. What has been unfolding for the last six years is being depicted before the world as a straight ‘choice’ between a regime that is willing to concede to all but its own people and a dubious extremist terror, most of which is foreign.
It was necessary to defend the regime. Since 1970, it has been providing valuable ‘services’ to several powers. Letting this regime fall has never been an option. Even after resorting to excessive violence in confronting the children of Daraa and Hama’s massive peaceful demonstration during the summer of 2011, it became obvious that the international community was intent on trivialising its crimes while undermining the credibility of its opponents.
Four years ago, I had a chat with Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, a British politician — who was a diligent campaigner on behalf of the victims of former Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein. She suggested Syrian refugees should return home, adding, “Assad is not another Saddam Hussein… they will be fine under his regime”.
In the same vein, one cannot forget former US president Barack Obama and his advisors. Obama played a major role in ‘redefining’ Washington’s practical priorities in Syria. Committed to a nuclear and strategic deal with Iran, Obama, like Le Pen, believed that confronting Daesh was the top priority in Syria. This is despite the fact that the terrorist group, in its current form, appeared on the scene no less than two years after the peaceful popular uprising and the regime’s bloody attempts to crush it. Indeed, Obama made fun of the moderate opposition, and dismissed its constituents and repeatedly refused to protect Syrian civilians by not imposing ‘no-fly zones’ and ‘safe havens’.
As for the Assad regime, it understands that it would continue to be accepted by many major regional and global powers. It would be preferred to any democratic alternative representing the lively forces in Syria. The Assad regime has realised, first, that it is a much-needed tool in maintaining the state of weakness and division in the Middle East. Hence, it would be impossible that those who have ‘used’ it for decades would let it fall.
Secondly, the regime has always looked for the ‘content’ rather than the ‘form’ in setting the priorities of maintaining power. All loud slogans of Arabism, secularism and socialism have been meaningless. Arabism means nothing when intersecting regional calculations of Iran, Israel, Turkey and Russia are based on and benefit from ethnic and sectarian faultlines.
Secularism, too, means nothing when sectarian identity defines the scale of influence, and when religious, sectarian and ethnic cleansing become a strategy for survival. And socialism, too, means nothing in a country controlled by monopolistic clan-based ‘mafias’ serving local and regional interests — and where trade unions and peasant federations metamorphose into mercenary gangs and cheering ‘crowds’.
This is the image of the besieged and ‘orphaned’ Syrian revolt six years after the demonstrations in the Damascus market and anti-regime graffiti by children in Daraa.
Having said this, however, Syria’s opposition groups have not been blameless. Some of their mistakes may be understandable keeping in mind the huge psychological damage a lengthy dictatorship has caused to the Syrian psyche. But other mistakes deserve blame, if not condemnation.
It is not too late to save Syria’s revolt, nor is it too late to uncover those conspiring against it. But it is now the right time to begin a candid and serious review before the situation deteriorates further, and the revolt loses all those who are qualified to rebuild the country the moment destruction stops.
Eyad Abu Shakra is the managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. He has been with the newspaper since 1978.
Four years ago, I had a chat with Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, the British politician — who was a diligent campaigner on behalf of the victims of former Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein. She suggested Syrian refugees should return home, adding, “Assad is not another Saddam Hussein… they will be fine under his regime”.