إشكالية انتقال السلطة في سوريا

المواجهة العسكرية  الدائرة في سورية بين المعارضة المسلحة و الجيش السوري جرمت الحكومة السورية بحيث أصبحت طرف في نزاع داخلي/اقليمي ، بعد أن كانت تولي اهتمام بقيادة مرحلة اصلاح سياسي يناسبها. عسكرة المعارضة السورية في المقابل  أودى ببراءة المعارضة ورفع سقف أهليتها، بحيث أصبح من المطلوب الآن انتصارات عسكرية نوعية  تتيح لتلك الجهة أو ذاك التحدث عن وقائع جديدة على الأرض

 كما اسفرت عنه المواجهات في دمشق منذ اسبوعين، المواجهات في حلب قد  تطول و لكنها ستخمد، و الهدوء المصطنع سيعود و عدم الاسقرار سيكون سيد الموقف . التوصيف القابل للترجمة السياسية في هذه الحالة هو أن كلا الطرفين منهك، و كلا الطرفين عاجز عن الحسم العسكري

 عند الحديث عن ضرورة التفاوض بين النظام و المعارضة هولهدف تجنب مأزق "خاسر/خاسر". لأن مأزق خاسر/خاسر بالنسبة لطرفي نزاع مسلحين يدفع ثمنه الباهظ المجتمع، الاسر، الأطفال، الممتلكات...كلما نظرت الى أحياء درعا، حمص، دير الزور، دمشق، حلب و كثير من المدن و القرى السورية ترى خراب و موت و أسى

كلا الطرفين مدرك أن تغيير سياسي قادم لا محالة. كيف ستتم آلية التغيير اذا كان احد الطرفين رافض للحوار؟. كيف سيتم انتقال للسلطة اذا لم يتم الاعتراف حتى الآن ان هناك مؤسسات حكومية و أمنية و عسكرية قائمة في البلد بحاجة أن تسلم؟ أين الحنكة السياسية من كلا الطرفين التي بامكانها حقن الدماء و حماية الناس بدل من تأجيج الموقف؟

كلما طال أمد الأزمة كلما زاد البعد الإقليمي توغلا و زاد التدخل الخارجي تعقيدا للموقف

في القصة المشهورة للنبي و القاضي العادل سليمان عندما تنازعت امرأتان امامه على ولد رضيع، أمر سليمان أن تأخذ كل امرأة قسم من جسد الولد. حكمة سليمان تنبهت الى حقيقة الهية هي أن الحق مجبول بالرحمة. الحق و الرحمة توءمان. ما كان من الأم الحقيقية إلا أن آثرت ابقاء ابنها حيا على أن تأخذ "حقها"  في جسده

أين أمهات سوريا؟ أين آباء سوريا؟

أنتم من تدركون أولوية الرحمة ببلدنا و بأهلنا

الطرفان في هذا النزاع الأليم سوريان، شئنا أم أبينا. الطرفان لهم  حياتهم واسرهم و أطفالهم، لهم مخاوفهم و أحلامهم. الطرفان لهم حقهم في العيش الكريم مع اليقين بوجوب محاسبة من تثبت عليهم جرائم ضد الإنسانية

على الطرفين تحمل مسؤولية ما يحصل من دمار و موت و تشريد في سوريا. أن يجلس ممثلون عن الطرفين إلى طاولة التفاوض للحديث عن المرحلة الانتقالية ليس بالمعجزة السياسية، هكذا يتم الانتقال و التحول السياسي في معظم الدول ، التي شهدت أحداث دموية و التي لم تشهد

سوريا حبيبتي.. الحرية و الكرامة   

 

 

To al Assad: Step Down!

The bombing in Rauda neighborhood in Damascus this past Wednesday, that killed a number of Assad's crisis management team, is hailed as a turning point. The inside job is a clear indicator that rivalries within the regime have brought about a shift in the crisis. For the first time, diplomatic circles are discussing the fact that al Assad is considering his imminent departure. Al Assad requires a "respectful" exit, according to a Russian diplomat in Paris. Discussions, part of the Geneva conference on Syria, have stressed the importance that a transitional period includes an exit plan for the regime.

Few months earlier, discussions between the opposition groups and the regime, via mediating parties like Germans and Russians, considered a transitional government that combines equal representation from the government and the opposition. The time that passed since then proved fetal to this proposition. It seems that the only focus of the regime should be to formulate an exit plan that maintenance the minimum amount of courtesy for al-Assad and his immediate family. Even this proposition might not be realistic after a while. 

Deploying the security solution by the regime, coupled by archaic authoritarian terror tactics has backfired and brought down the establishment. Al-Assad lost, and his reputation is forever marred in the essence of this bloody crisis. But this is only half the truth. The other half is that a nation woke up. Syrians, after the demonstrations began in March of last year, were able to express unspoken grievances and sad memories. The right to speak freely and to demand justice proved far more valuable then orchestrated stability. Syria will never be the same.

All hopes are that the transitional period be an inclusive political one. 

سوريا حبيبتي .. الحرية و الكرامة

Syria: Planning the Transition

International preparation are underway for a conference on Syria. This conference is to be held either in Moscow or Geneva. Unlike previous conferences, which contributed to the polarization between the international powers, this conference aspires to be all inclusive. The conference will include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, US, UK, France, Russia and China. In addition to: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, UN and Arab League. Currently, the contentious point seems to be Iran's participation, which is objected to by the US and Saudi Arabia.


Coordinating among the external players is crucial to end the blood shed in Syria. The polarizing effects of contradictory massages coming from the international community in the past year was mirrored by streams of blood and violence in Syrian towns and villages. With one side Russia and China supporting the Syrian government and calling on the regime and the opposition to negotiate the transition, and another side US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia encouraging the opposition to dismiss these calls and arm the rebels; violence and chaos has permeated the Syrian scene. 


Drafting a transition period and a post-Assad government seems to be more likely than ever. The time is ripe for a compromise between the major powers. The exit strategy for al-Assad is on the table, all concerned parties agree now, even Russia, that in all likelihood, al-Assad needs to go. 

Another crucial development is the structural overhaul of the Syrian National Council (SNC). The representative of the outside Syrian opposition, SNC, has restructured and expanded its membership, and has elected a new president. Dr. Sayda, the new president is an independent Syrian dissident. As a  Sunni and a Kurd, he is likely to understand the sensitivities of the majority in Syria, the Sunnis, and be receptive to the concerns of minorities. 

This is a great boost to the council, which was perceived in the past as exclusive and dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. This new expansion and leadership in SNC will introduce the critical inclusive, moderate tone required for the opposition representative to coordinate amongst the different opposition factions, and to calm the fears of religious and ethnic minorities in Syria. 

These two crucial developments are steps towards starting the negotiations for an exit plan for the regime, and a gradual transitional period. Including Iran in the initial transition negotiations is crucial, the level with which Iran will have a say in a post-Assad Syria, though, is up for negotiation.

سوريا حبيبتي..الحرية و الكرامة

How Syria became an Exception

The Syrian opposition is finally making the necessary visits to Russia, China and Iran, after it had wasted 2011 lingering mainly in the political hallways of Washington, DC. The trio power brokers have consistently asked both sides, the Syrian government and opposition to start negotiations sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is underway, and major-general Mood is reporting relatively positive feedback from the ground of previous hotspots such as Homs, Idlib and Duma. At the same time, Syrian citizens are preparing for parliamentary elections. Countless adds and TV interviews are introducing candidates, who in turn are either independent or representatives of the newly minted political parties. In short, the leverage has shifted away dramatically from the Syrian outside opposition (SNC).

The interesting question is how did the situation reach this point? Was the Syrian outside opposition ever legitimate in the eyes of Syrians? Why did Syria become an exception when compared to Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya? Or, is the Syrian case the new standard for future uprisings in Arab countries?

When Hussni Mubarak claimed that foreign conspiracy is behind the uprising in Egypt, he became a laughing stock in the Arab street because everyone knows that he was the embodiment of an "American Puppet". When Bashar al Assad claimed that there is a foreign conspiracy adding fuel to the fire in Syria, the Arab street reaction was different. The essence of why the Syrian case is different from both Tunisia and Egypt stems from this critical point.

Surveying news media outlets in the post-revolution Tunisia and Egypt reveal that there is support for al Assad against foreign meddling in Syria, and against foreign support for extremists active in Syria.

It is well understood that Syria was under an authoritarian government and was suffering from misguided liberal economic policies that have increased poverty to a staggering 50% in the past decade. The uprising in Syria had its political, economic and social justifications. No one was able, however, to carry on the task of championing the cause of the demonstrators. The reasons boil down to that the Syrian intellectual dissidents in Europe and US had varying overarching agendas. Some of which were stated in a WSJ article of an interview with Burhan Ghaliun the head of the SNC (Syrian National Council) who stated, for example, that a free Syria will sever ties with Iran, Hamas and Hezbullah. Clearly a pleasing announcement to solicit US and western support for the SNC, which they got.

Once the confrontation became violent between the government and armed groups in Syria in the summer of last year, the opposition escalated the demands for forceful regime change. Pulling a Chalabi by the Syrian opposition is not a surprise, however the stark miscalculation of the SNC by not considering the sever lack of support inside Syria for military intervention is mind boggling. The next miscalculation came when there was international support for Kofi Anan's mission in Syria, which subsequently paved the way for the current UN mission, and the SNC declared that the mission will fail even before it started. The SNC, furthermore, adopted the violent confrontation with the military and solicited military aid from Saudi Arabia and Qatar (which both have provided).

It is hard to explain away SNCs past tactical failures, considering that they are now contemplating what they have refused before, namely to start negotiation with the Syrian government.

It took the international community a whole year to catch its breath from the dramatic unfolding of the political awakening erupting in some Arab countries. The reactions towards the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya have varied. Some observers might add that the US dealt with the previous uprisings with a prudent cautious welcome. 

Based on results of the parliamentary elections in Egypt, the cautious aspect of American Foreign policy towards future uprisings will only increase. The name of the game will most likely be 'how to manage change" not "how to support change". 

Managing the change through an inclusive approach is clear in the Syrian case. The United States engaged the Arab League, a regional organization, from the very beginning. The UN along with the Arab League are part of the multilateral approach to a possible solution to the Syrian turmoil. Countries that have supported military escalation, KSA and Qatar, eventually became outliers, outside the realm of international cooperation to resolve the crisis. 

The SNC engaged with and solicited support from the US based on a 2003 - 2006 mentality. US foreign policy however has shifted and evolved into multilateralism and a deliberate management style,  coordinating with the rising powers. The focus of the rising powers  is to deescalate the crisis, find a path towards negotiation, and resolve the matter politically.

The lessons learned from the Syrian case are endless and are just starting to unfold.

Only a Syrian Solution to the Syrian Crisis

A year has passed carrying memories of thousands of lives lost, and the pain of broken families, orphans and widows. Since last March, Syrians undertook the most noble of all actions; speaking truth to power. They demonstrated against oppression, economic injustice and marginalization.

Syrians have taken on the bravest of all maneuvers, namely risking their livelihood in order to see change through. The areas in cities and villages that have risen up are predominantly the poor and marginalized, hence the most vulnerable of Syrian society.

Decades of authoritarianism is coming to an end thanks, in the most part, to the bravery and selfless activism of these Syrian communities.

What strikes me as a disgrace to the honorable sacrifices of these communities, who demonstrated against injustices, is the advocacy of the outside opposition for military intervention and arming of militias inside Syria. Basically, a call for Syrians to continue killing Syrians, on a larger scale.

It is not only about the 8,000 lives that have been lost thus far, by encouraging an unequal confrontation between armed groups and military/security apparatuses, but also the countless families and communities that have been displaced and shattered.

One can not expect to advocate military intervention and the arming of militias, and then expect stability and national reconciliation to take place in the aftermath of the carnage. Libya is an example.

In Syria at this point, one can blame and hold accountable certain groups and individuals who have committed excess violence. However, with military intervention and an official supply of arms to the 37 different armed groups in Syria, the situation will be irrevocably fused between a proxy and civil war. All Syrians will loose, in particular the Syrian communities that have risen up since last March.

It is not an anomaly for opposition groups to differ. However an opposition group can not differentiate itself by claiming a pretentious style of patriotism, while paying for it with the lives of the most vulnerable of Syrian society. These European based opposition groups have not felt the brunt of what they are advocating. It is a shame and a disgrace to call for Syrians to kill Syrians. This is the epitome of moral and ethical failure.

ُNeither the government and its supporters nor the Syrian opposition can eliminate and isolate the other. Both, if we like it or not, are an integral part of the Syrian fabric. The two sides need to be pushed to the negotiating table.. check your ego at the door, and get involved with the negotiation process!! Save Syrian lives, save the homeland.

سوريا حبيبتي .. الحرية و الكرامة

المصالح القومية السورية

المشهد الداخلي السوري ينبؤ بفترة من الاحتقان المزمن و الدامي. مرحلة "كسر العظم" بين النظام و المعارضة أربك المشهد الإقليمي، و أخرج سوريا و لو بشكل جزءي من اطار ربيع عربي الى إطار دولة تواجه مجموعات مسلحة

.
ما أضعف المعارضة الخارجية السورية في الفترة الأخيرة

اولا تبني المواجهة المسلحة، التي هي بدورها مشتتة بين جنود نظاميين فارين انتقلوا الى حرب الشوارع و مجموعات اسلامية راديكالية، مع انعدام التنسيق بينهما

ثانيا التنازل الغير مبرر و الخطير عن مصالح سوريا الاستراتيجية

ثالثا عدم ادراك أن النظام العالمي تغير عما اعتدنا عليه في تسعينات القرن الماضي..
العالم يتجه شرقا الا المعارضة السورية تتجه غربا.. و هذه بداية غير مطمئنة

لا يمكن للمعارضة السورية اعادة احياء سوريا ١٩٦٠ ، كما لا يمكنها خلق سوريا جديدة تشبه ذاكرة و أحلام السوريين المغتربين قسرا عن وطنهم..

سوريا على مدى أربعين سنة قد تغيرت، للأفضل أو للأسوأ، مربط الجمل أنها تغيرت. يتحتم على المعارضة السورية التعامل مع الواقع و مع مكونات المصالح المتشابكة كما هي على أرض الواقع.

يبدو من المعطيات الداخلية السورية و العربية أنه يتحتم على المعارضة السورية إعادة النظر في الحوار مع النظام.. لحقن الدماء، لحفظ الوطن ،و لضمان مصلحة كل السوريين


سوريا حبيبتي.. الحرية و الكرامة

Upholding the Oath to Preserve the Homeland

"I will do all that is within my power to preserve and protect the homeland" Bashar al-Asad, 2000.

The crisis in Syria, after ten months of continuous demonstrations and violence, has reached a critical point. The crisis, thus far, was consumed by its daily violent developments to the extent that stakeholders almost lost the essence of a fundamental principle: preserving the homeland.

The emotional violent upheaval that is entrenching both sides in their stated positions is clouding the idea of Syria as a state for all, and a protector of all. It is not a surprise that both the Syrian opposition and the Syrian regime hold fundamentally different views on governance, but what is alarming is that both sides are willing to test the endurance of the other side till the bitter end.

The crisis in Syria is not about whose reported casualty numbers are more accurate, or which side inflicted the most devastating blow . The crisis in Syria is passed the point of who is capable of massing a greater number of supporters, or whose eye witness reports are more authentic, or who will fund a better PR campaign the next day, or who is collaborating with "enemies". The crisis is building up and producing cracks in the very foundations of Syria as a state.

The critical facts on the ground call on the president to step down and allow for a peaceful transition to take place.

6,000 casualties silenced the rhetorical discussions of reform by the regime. 6,000 casualties tainted the wall of achievements of the current administration. The amount of destruction and death, of civilians and military, have stripped this government of any moral standing.

It is at this time in history where a president needs to fulfill his oath to protect the homeland. Stepping down as president and allowing for a peaceful transition is a political decision fulfilled through a moral obligation for an idea.

An idea that Syria can be a homeland for all.