Thank you

-->

It has been a while since I last posted on my blog. I missed this little unedited, unfiltered, shrouded in innocence, space in blogosphere. Not only did I write what I thought, but I also grew from this experience, and was able to connect with many of my readers. Thank you to all who followed and read my posts. I will always treasure this experience and treasure the friendships that resulted. I found out the true value in sharing once thoughts...you find out who you are and what you stand for.

The past year has been a wonderful and exciting one on a professional level. Work has consumed most of my time, and my passion for politics found a prominent outlet. My consulting firm i-Strategic, established in 2013, is doing very well, and I feel privileged and committed to providing quality services to our clients. 

I hope you can visit us at www.i-Strategic.com, and follow us on Twitter @istrategic1.

Syrian kids from Idlib…. Freedom and Dignity to all Syrians. 


 

Syria: Citizenship in the Midst of Chaos

Ongoing discussions about the crisis in Syria are nestled in the ugly confines of sectarianism.  Despite the very human suffering and crimes against humanity committed in Homs, Aleppo, Malula, and Adra, which have not spared any ethnicity or religious domination, yet the default trend in political discussions are the criminal categorizations of citizens by their factional identity. Unintentionally, this trend among intelligent people echoes the practical mentality of the criminals and terrorist who diminish the whole of a person to fit the simplifications of a demented ideology.

When the Islamists entered Adra few days ago, a city housing factory workers initially but has received and is housing refugees from neighboring cities, they targeted and sorted out families, mothers, fathers and children through their religious sects. What these families have suffered for two and a half years did not matter, what mattered was the preconceived ugly notion of eliminating the "other".  The "other" is not only used to justify the slaughter but to establish a political agenda for Jabhat Nusra, ISIS, and newly formed alJabha al Islamia. 

It is a continued travesty that the discussions on Syria echo and reenforce the criminal sectarian mentality, and repackage it to be palatable around dinner tables or at higher level committee meetings.

The criminal oversimplification should not find its way into the discussion among solution-seekers for the Syrian crisis. Syria needs to be aware of the shortsightedness and long term weaknesses imbedded in a sectarian solution. Syrian citizens is what Syrians are, nothing less. Lebanon which tried to emerge from the factional infighting during the Lebanese civil war through a factional constitution is still suffering.
 


While forming a coalition between the Syrian government and the inside opposition to unite against the terrorist groups could set Syria on the road of deliverance, there is no doubt that factional crimes are rampant. Pushing back against the criminal sectarian categorization of citizens is a political and educational endeavor to be started as soon as possible.



What intellectuals owe themselves is not to muddy their truth-seeking mentality with criminal simplifications, which consistently justify certain solutions on sectarian considerations. This is a slippery slope with no end in Syria, the land of ethnic and religious diversity.


What Syrians owe Syria، after all the lessons have passed، is to anchor the meaning of citizenship in the hearts, and uphold the love of country above any ethnic or religious affiliation.


سوريا حبيبتي...الحرية و الكرامة

Iran's Political Capital and the Pursuit of Resolutions

Mohammad Javad Zarif's real mission has just begun. Iran's foreign minister who successfully spear headed Iran's team during the Geneva negotiations that resulted in an initial six month deal, has his work cut out for him. 

Iran acquired considerable political capital after the successful nuclear deal was signed by the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany with Iran. Partial sanctions were lifted, corporations are looking to invest in Iran, Iran's auto industry will receive a significant boost, and 5% enrichment will continue.This diplomatic breakthrough shifted Iran's standing from isolated and sanctioned into an emerging state with considerable domestic industry and international clout. 

While Iran's diplomatic and economic relations with Pakistan and Iraq have been in good standing for more than ten years, Iran's relations with Saudi Arabia have not. Both states clashed over and in Syria. A dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia seems to be a prerequisite before a deal can be reached in the Syrian crisis. The Iranians are heading in that direction by smoothing out relations with Turkey and Egypt in the interim.

The question is how can Iran incorporate its new regional and international political capital to resolve regional files? Iran's role in working on expanding its efforts towards a resolution in the Syrian crisis will help  Iran reposition it as cooperative and solution oriented, rather than the conventional Gulf states perception of Iran as a provocateur.

Foreign minister Zarif has many regional diplomatic trips ahead of him, not that the burden of proving good intentions is solely on Iran, but rather it is a mission of a skilled statesman to invest the acquired political capital where it will bear the most fruit in the long run. The long term strategy is to solidify Iran's new standing with a proactive diplomacy that reaches out of its comfort zone to warm up cold relations.

Iran's Nuclear Deal and Political Independance

When Israel's prime minister Netanyahu called Iran's Nuclear deal with western powers a historical mistake, and when U.S., EU, Iran, UAE and others called it a historical success, both would be correct in that the deal is unprecedented and historical.

The way this deal came to fruition is a marker of our new multi-polar international order, and it translated effectively the U.S.'s transitional position from hegemony. 

The transition to a multi-polar system allows disgruntled states, such as Iran, the political opportunity to assert their rights. Iran has been calling its right to have peaceful nuclear capability, according to international law and the NPT convention, as its "Haq". Iran has achieved that Haq, and the international community legitimized Iran's nuclear program. Far from Iran becoming a U.S. partner or ally, this deal paved the way for much needed cooperation between the U.S. and Iran on crucial regional files, such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. In the larger context, expanding U.S.'s partnerships in the region against terrorism, the strategic priority, is of mutual interest to both U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies.

This deal also signified the success of negotiation, and finding grounds for mutual interests, preceded by accepting the opponent as an equal... A far cry from the archaic and failed carrot and stick mentality.

The nuclear deal signifies the possibility of the long sought after Political Independence in the region. Ever since Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared in 1978 that the Islamic civilization will also possess nuclear arsenal, in order to not be subject to blackmail, the underlying current to strive for greater political independence and attaining regional power is getting stronger in the Middle East. Iran proved that resisting the subordination of policy to U.S. and western interests is possible. Egypt under al Sissi is taking note and so is Iraq. 

Autonomous policy making and resisting subordination to the west does not translate to becoming an enemy of the U.S. and the west, quiet to the contrary. It is a blunt political stance that implies the need to being treated as an equal, and recognized as having legitimate national interests. For these states coordination and cooperation are the preferred courses of action with great powers. Because only through cooperation and coordination with great powers can these states recognize and legitimize their statues as equals. From a strategic stance; accounting for the U.S.'s proactive management of the historic transition to a multi-polar system, this initial/6 month Nuclear deal qualifies for a win/win statues.

Syria: Rising from the Ashes of the Arab Spring

In the past three years, Tunis, Egypt, Yemen and Libya experienced the Arab Spring triology of uprising, regime change and political stagnation marred with instability and terrorism. The Syrian crisis is closer to one long episode of political and ideological rivalry concerning the future identity of Syria, carried out through a history making carnage. 

What the Syrian crisis has revealed, although not for the first time, is that the Syrian opposition does not understand politics, coalition making, or what negotiations are meant to deliver. The illogical stubbornness of demanding US military intervention, and the failure to come up with plan B other than insisting on depleting every last drop of Syrian lives, treasure and dignity, is a symptom of intellectual and moral deficiency. 

On a practical level, the Syrian opposition, as in the SNC, is still not capable of negotiating a common thread linking all the outside opposition factions, from the leftist to the Islamists. If they are not capable of producing a united group to represent the SNC at Geneva 2, how can we expect them to find common ground with the Syrian Coordination Committee (inside opposition), let alone finding common ground with government representatives?

Well the answer came today from the SNC as they opted against attending Geneva 2. Their insistence on Bashar alAssad ouster before attending Geneva 2 is just a thin veil covering their internal turmoil.

Whether the SNC attends Geneva 2 or not, there are other opposition groups with real on the ground connections to Syria and Syrians; groups committed to putting an end to the crisis, start the rebuilding efforts, and fight the terrorist groups that have spread across Syria.

The international dynamics, after the chemical weapons agreement with the Syrian government, which actively re-legitimized the Syrian government internationally, and the subsequent regional maneuver of Turkey, Iran,Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are reactions to a critical threshold reached by the Syrian government.

1- There is an international consensus that president Bashar al Asad will complete his presidential term until June 2014.
2- The Syrian military is gaining ground, not just in the Damascus suburbs, but also up north near Aleppo. The infighting amongst the Islamists  militia is increasing.  
3-Qatar has played a critical role recently in freeing the nine Lebanese hostages (kidnapped for more than a year) , sending a message of reproachmant to the Syrian government.
4-Turkey has announced that it is actively combating the presence of ISIS and Nusra Front in the north, and no longer allowing the boarder infiltration of weapons and militants.
5- Jordan has sent messages that it is supporting the efforts of fighting terrorism and combating the terrorist groups active in Syria. 
6- Saudi Arabia is slowly adjusting, with some diplomatic fanfare,  to the realities of US-Iranian dialogue and to the increased US support for the Maliki government.   
7-Iran emerged more powerful after the democratic elections which ushered Rohani's presidency that started with a proactive diplomacy towards both US and Saudi Arabia.
8-Egypt, and the counterrevolution of June 30th hastened the departure of the Muslim brotherhood from Arab politics, not just in Egypt. 

The geopolitical developments of the region are not in the SNC's favor, considering that some SNC members still insist that the ISIS and Nusra are fighting for freedom, and that deserting them is deserting the Syrian revolution. 

It is quiet possible that the SNC lacks organizational flexibility to adjust to the facts on the ground. One possibility is that we might see the dissolution of the SNC  and the emergence of individuals from the outside opposition, which later merge with an opposition representative group comprised of the Syrian Coordination Committee and Kurdish representatives. 

The Syrian developments influenced US, Russian and EU diplomacy, and changed the dynamics between regional states. What is clear by now is that the final straw that broke the Arab Spring was delivered in Syria. The ashes of the Arab Spring are most visible through the daily violence and bombings  of al Qaeda affiliated groups in Libya, Sinai,Tunis, Yemen and Syria.

The fallout of the Syrian crisis is slowly merging past adversaries on mutual interest grounds. US and Iran, Turkey and Iran, Egypt, Syria and the Arab states interests are slowly converging and redirecting the compus of the region towards the most pressing security issue of our time, and that is terrorism. 

سوريا حبيبتي...الحرية و الكرامة

A U.S. Military Strike on Syria: Dead Wrong

It is quite baffling to hear advocates of a military strike on Syria talk about how it would serve America's national interests.With thousands of al Qaeda militants permeating the northern and eastern parts of Syria, and more militias declaring loyalty to al Baghdadi and al Jolani in the southern districts, escalating the chaos that would lead to state collapse is hardly a reasonable option. 

Reshuffling the cards on the ground with a military strike might have served as a tactical advantage for the Syrian opposition early on in the crisis. But certainly not now after two and a half years of mutual destruction between the armed forces and the rebels, countless acts against humanity, millions of displaced people, and vast lawless regions saturated with weapons and black markets for arms and chemical weapons.

The intention of defending an international norm, that is the ban of use of chemical weapons, can not be served by the proposed military strike. The United States must support the UN investigation into the various incidences of chemical attacks that occurred in Syria, and use its coercive diplomacy and political clout to uphold the perpetrators accountable in International courts. Agreements to send experts to work on controlling and securing the chemical stockpiles in Syria could be worked out with the future Syrian coalition government. This is the only approach that would serve the United States' credibility and interests in that part of the world.

In addition to the political obstacles facing the build up of an international coalition to support such an attack, the Obama administration is risking abandoning its "corrective" stance in US Foreign Policy. After years of promoting a foreign policy approach that differed with the Bush administration's take on international issues, the Obama administration is being influenced by Syrian Chalabies. The neo-Chalabies, who are abusing America's support for human rights  principles for their own political advantage, do not have any control over the various armed militias or al Qadeda fighters on the ground. They will pragmatically adjust and abandon their "pro American" stance, once the reality of the factional infighting in Syria kicks in. By that time however, if the United States chose to strike, it would have been morally implicated in the civil war and its outcome, and entrapped by the hideous dishonor of commitments that plagues Middle East politics. 

The United States military might must not be tainted by the Syrian civil war. The United States has a moral obligation to support efforts to bring both sides to the negotiation table. Years of civil war in Lebanon and the ten year civil war in Algeria did only end through a negotiated settlement, with both sides at the table.

The severe humanitarian and security crisis in Syria calls for an end to armed confrontation, not an escalation.

أبرياء الحرب العبثية

لم أكن أتصور أن يجتمع هول و بشاعة مجزرتي حلبجة و سربنتشا في مكان واحد . مكان تكسرت فيه الطفولة و ضحكات الجيران. مكان آثر السكون من بشاعة مشاهد الموت.

 شهدت الغوطة على عبثية العنف و الاستهانة بأرواح الناس.شهدت كما مدن  سورية كثيرة كخان العسل، الحولة، ادلب و ريف اللاذقية، على أن ما أمكن تمريره و تبريره من قبل آلة الحرب على أنه "ثمن" التحرير، لهو صادر عن هياكل على شكل إنسان.. هياكل بلا ضمير..هياكل لاتعني لها لغة العمل على إنهاء العنف و حفظ الأرواح شيء.هياكل تفضل الغرق في وحل العمل العسكري كي لا تضطر للتفاوض و تقديم تنازلات لحفظ البلد و أرواح الناس

 عندما كانت القذائف الآثمة تدمر و تدمي و تميت في أنحاء سوريا، كان بعض الناجين قادرا على لملمة ما يمكن إنقاذه .أما في الغوطة فالسكون و الشحوب الذي جلل الضحايا شاهد على ان خيار نفض غبار الهجوم كان مستحيل، أن خيار الإسعاف كان مستحيل...حتى الناجين لم يكن بإمكانهم ممارسة انسانيتهم و التخفيف عن من تخنقه الغازات السامة

اصبع أصغر طفل توفي أو جرح أو تألم في هذا الصراع أشرف و أطهر من أكبر رأس سياسي سوري متعنت من الطرفين

يجب تقديم الجهة المسؤولة عن الهجوم الكيميائي للمحكمة الدولية... يجب تقديم كل من مارس جرائم ضد الإنسانية للعدالة

ترابك يا سوريا حضن كتير من ولادو..بيكفي ...  

Libya, Egypt and Syria: The Common Thread

After popular uprisings erupted in Sidi Buzaid in Tunisia, in 2010, and spread to Egypt, Libya and Syria, the common feature, after two years, between these three countries is not transition to democracy. It is rather the spread of terrorism. The vacuum in leadership and instability manifested a fertile environment that expanded al Qaeda operations in the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda, and its affiliates, established, for the first time, permanent bases in Libya, in Sinai Egypt and in Syria. These three bases work as strategic hubs for attracting jihadists from three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. These three hubs, extend al Qaeda operations in northern Africa, Sinai, and provide a logistical extension to the Islamic state of Iraq.

There is not one catalyst to this security failure. Yes, there are ethnic and religious grievances that have not been settled in the Middle East. Yes, transition to democracy is messy and will take a long time, since it strives to overcome the old entrenched authoritarian order. Yes, the United States was well intentioned in its intervention in Libya, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and refusing dialogue with al Assad in Syria.Yes, the U.S. could not have sided with Qaddafi, Mubarak or al Assad against the people in these countries.

Yet none of these readily available talking points explain the lapse in judgement and miscalculation that bolstered al Qaeda operations. In Libya, the U.S. supported the Islamic fighters that have helped overthrow Qaddafi and then denied them any role in government. The importance given to establishing a secular government in Libya, isolated and sidelined the fighters who formed militias, and in turn attacked U.S. and Libyan establishments.

The U.S. polished the image of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, with countless media appearances, PR campaigns in academic, think tank and political circles. After a year in office, the U.S. had to contend with the utter failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in governing, and subsequent popular ousting of president Mursi in 2013, that was confirmed by a military coup. Meanwhile, Islamists fighters and jihadists that have been pardoned by Mursi, are regrouping in Sinai. Increasingly, the Islamists in Egypt are converging with their likes in the region, who are not equipped to incorporate compromise and negotiations as political tools.  

In Syria, the United States refused any negotiations with the Syrian government, a stance shared by the Syrian opposition residing outside of Syria. In turn, the bloody confrontation called upon willing fighters, funds, and weapons that have flooded the country for two years. Two sides have been on a quest for mutual senseless destruction. Meanwhile, eighty thousand foreign Islamists fighters, with money and weapons, are working on their own agenda in Syria.

The U.S. was in dire need to regain its stance as an international leader in the Middle East after the troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Instead the United States has bleed credibility in 2011 and 2012, undermined its national interests, and threatened the security of its allies in the region. 

When state secretary Kerry took over these files, with input by the Department of Defense, the corrective shift in American foreign policy in 2013 started to show.

Negotiation between representative of the Syrian government and Syrian opposition is prioritized over other solutions in the Syrian case. Fighting terrorism is on the agenda during U.S. discussions with Syrian opposition groups. In Egypt, the strong military ties between the U.S. and Egyptian military helped adjust U.S. policy.  The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood failure in governing, and subsequent ousting, is seen as a strategic loss for them as an organization, and it increased skepticism regarding the competence of political Islam to provide solutions to social, economic and political problems. 

In Libya, considerable steps are taken to adjust the composition of the Libyan government to accommodate representatives of the fighters who overthrew Qaddafi.

In these three countries, the United States is on a quest to solicit cooperation and partnerships to combat terrorism, and prepare for slower more calculated steps towards more equitable forms of government, lead by Libyans, Egyptians and Syrians. 

I hope that the Syrian opposition, SNC, is adjusting and preparing for direct negotiations without conditions, to end the bloodshed and spare Syria total collapse. 

سوريا حبيبتي ...الحرية و الكرامة

The Syrian Opposition and Geneva 2

A truth became evident when a Iraqi tribal leader, in Anbar province, heading the demonstrations against Maliki government, refused to repeat the "Syrian scenario" in Iraq. The same sentiment was repeated by opposition leaders in Huwija, near Kirkuk (100 km north of Baghdad). After all Iraq has been through since 2003, yet what unfolded in Syria in the past two years stood out as a story... a story to be told, but never repeated. 

Now there is a "Syrian scenario" that is feared and must be avoided by governments and opposition groups alike in neighboring countries. Governments and opposition groups throughout the Middle East just witnessed in Syria the upper bound of a national crisis. More than 100,000 dead, 1.4 million externally displaced people, more that 5 million internally displaced. Cities, villages, and communities throughout Syria deemed unrecognizable. The sons of Syria are killing each other with support of complicit foreigners.

Syria became the worst case scenario imagined from a government security standpoint, and from an opposition's political gain perspective. 

The futility of a military solution in this crisis was evident since last year, hence the call of the International community headed by Moscow, for both sides to meet at the Geneva convention in June 2012. The idea of negotiating with the Syrian government was rejected by various opposition groups. While Moscow and Iran were fully committed to the path of negotiation from the beginning, the US and it's Arab allies were not. The Syrian opposition, represented by the Syrian National Council turned to the militarization path, as the only option to topple the regime. 

The Syrian opposition (SNC)'s calls for arms, US and NATO military intervention, and no fly zones, increased between June 2012 and April 2013. On two occasions, the EU refused to lift the arms embargo put on the opposition. Since June 2012, additional 50,000 Syrians died, 800,000 Syrians left the country and more than 10 million Syrians are living at the poverty threshold (1$/day). 

New calls to a second Geneva Peace convention, to be held in June/July, are garnering support from the international community. 

This time however State Secretary Kerry's diplomatic consultation, in the last couple of months, has converged the U.S. position with that of Russia, China, Germany and other EU countries.  Finding a political solution through negotiation between Syrian government representatives, and opposition representatives, via the Geneva plan, is seen as the only viable option... it always was.

The only difference this time, compared to June 2012, is that the Syrian government is at a significant advantage, for the following reasons: 

1- The international community has recognized the threat of radicalized armed groups in Syria, such as Annusra Front, along with other 27 groups. The FSA lacks arms and refused an infighting with the Islamist groups. The job of fighting the Islamist groups has been left in the hands of the Syrian Army. That aspect of the Syrian military operations is supported by the International community.

2- The International community has been consistently averse to military intervention in Syria. NATO command does not consider military air strikes, or no fly zones . Supplying Arms to the rebels have also been discounted, in fear that it will reach the most organized among the rebels, namely the radical Islamists.

3- The Syrian army made strategic advancements on the grounds in the past two months, especially in alQussair near Homs, in Daraia near Damascus, and in Ghuta Sharqia. The logistics and supply routs of the militants have been severely damaged. 

4- The political infighting, and mistrust among SNC members, have damaged their reputation as effective future statesmen. Many individuals are well intentioned and working towards a solution to the crisis. Yet many others are there to serve their own agenda, with disregard to the unprecedented humanitarian devastation reached in Syria. 

5- Qatar who supported the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood stance within the Syrian National Coalition has taken a back seat recently in the Syrian crisis. Saudi Arabia is taking a bigger role along with Iran, Egypt and Russia. 

6- The recent rapprochement between Egypt and Iran (also Jordan and Iran) have further bolstered "Direct Negotiation" as the only option to gradually resolve the crisis in Syria. 



My hope is that talks about a transitional government, and transitional justice will replace the news stream of devastation, death and destruction of Syria in the coming months.


سوريا حبيبتي.. الحرية و الكرامة



  

Syria: The Case for Direct Negotiations

 

Since March 2011, demonstrators in towns of Dar’a and Homs voiced their longing for freedom, dignity, and justice.  Syrians across the country, who took to the streets to demand change, also voiced their awareness of the diversity of Syrian society, hence the famous chant of “One, one, one, the Syrian people are one”.  

The initial momentum of the uprising morphed into a crisis over time, resembling a civil war.  Sectarianism seeped into the fore; communities and people were targeted based on their ethnicity and religious sect. Which in a country like Syria is a recipe for self-annihilation. The full capability of the Syrian army was launching on all out assault on armed groups, which did not spare innocent communities from its wrath. Two years of mutual destruction fueled and prolonged by regional and international power tug, resulted in more that 60,000 dead, and millions displaced internally and externally. Towns and villages across Syria deemed unrecognizable. 

Neither side, the predominantly Islamists armed groups and the Syrian military, are able to assert control and restore stability.  Prolonged attrition warfare even if it resulted in a pyrrhic victory would not serve the political cause of either side. In short, it is a lose/lose situation, and the cost in lives and infrastructure are much too great.  The urgent reason to start direct negotiations between the two sides is to stop the blood spilling, continuous displacement of people and the senseless destruction. But that is not the only reason.

If there was one virtue in the time passed since March 2011, it would be the painful and incremental political maturing of the Syrian opposition.  It might not be a stretch to say that hundred of thousands of Syrians had to pay the price for political incompetence, fragmentation, and short sightedness. The inescapable path to negotiation was paved with delusional demands for American military intervention, demands for direct arms supply from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the hope that Russia, China and Iran detract their support for the Syrian government.  It is a disgrace and a dishonor to everything that was sacrificed by Syrians, willingly or unwillingly, if the opposition prolongs the crisis when the writing is clearly on the wall. 

There are long-term reasons to start negotiation between the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition with minimum condition: that is to set an elite precedent that solution oriented discussions among situational adversaries is possible.  Not only possible, but that it is the only way for Syrians to coexist in a non-coercive environment, for democratic practices to be institutionalized for the benefit of larger and more diverse segments of society, and to establish the start of an inclusive national dialogue.

The social, political, and economic fabric of Syria is woven by a multi ethnic and religious daily exchange. Disenfranchised communities in Idleb, Dar’a, Raqqa and Dair al Zur can not flourish and benefit form future political reform and economic development if they are not integrated with and the benefactor of the diverse socioeconomic reality of the rest of the country.  From the time you leave your apartment in downtown Damascus to get coffee, croissant and a newspaper, you would have run into, talk to, ask for and receive from, people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds . The factory owner in Aleppo buys his material from, employs, and sells to most if not from all ethnic/religious groups in Syria.

Any attempt to institutionalize democratic practices, rehabilitate communities across the country, and start the rebuilding process, must start with a meaningful attempt at a dialogue, negotiation and compromise between the two sides at the top. Yes, between Syrians themselves.

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.

To al Assad: Step Down!

The security solution deployed by the Syrian government, for eight consecutive months, crippled any political outlet proposed by the internal opposition, the external opposition, Arab delgations, and the UN. 3,500 deaths and tens of thousands of arrests marred the possibility of acceptable reform from the current establishment. It is hard to emagine how the current regime would be capable of negotiating the transfer of power and the shape of the transitional government. The only venue the current regime should be concerned about negotiating now is its exit plan.

The mantra of a "global conspiracy" against Syria, a consistant story-line in the official Syrian news channels, is loosing its steam rapidly within Syria. Even if Damascus and Aleppo maintain their position of neutrality towards the demonstrations, that is not considered a qualifier to maintain the statues quo. The demonstrations elsewhere in Syria are increasingly becoming more political rather than ethnicly or religiously oriented. The slogans range from " one, one, one,the Syrian people are one" and " prefering death to humiliation" , to "Get Out".

The Syrian uprising, fuled by an archaic authoritarian response over eight months, has united Syrians and is approaching a critical juncture. The spokespersons for the Syrian opposition groups need to keep up with the developments on the ground in Syria. If Syrian efforts on the ground are converging towards specific demands, the so called representatives need to prioratize specific political objectives and leave ideological differences, liberalism vs. conservatism, for the ballot box.

A message to president al Assad: Step down! Your plan of containment has failed.

سوريا حبيبتي ..الحرية و الكرامة

ما بعد البعث: بلورة مفهوم الكرامة الوطنية

الدول و أنظمة الحكم على إختلافها ترتكز على مبادئ أساسية لإرساء دعائم الحكم. عندما يكون النظام السياسي في بلد ما على أعتاب مرحلة إنتقالية, تبدأ إعادة النظر و التقييم للمبادئ السياسية التي ارتكز عليها النظام منتهي الصلاحية,

حزب البعث العربي الإشتراكي , و بحكم تفرده عمليا بصياغة القرار السياسي في سوريا منذ عام 1963 أثربشكل فاعل على تشكيل المعالم الاساسية للثقافة السياسية في سوريا . بغض النظر إن كان حزب البعث في العقود السابقة ملتزما بمبادئه أم ملتحفا بها , فإن القاعدة الأيديولوجية للدولة السورية على أعتاب منعطف تاريخي الآن.

مجموعة الاسئلة التي تطرح نفسها فيما يخص التوجه السياسي في المرحلة الإنتقالية: ما هو مصير مبدأ التصدي للهيمنة الغربية على مقدرات الشعوب؟ ما هو مصيرالعمل على استقلالية القرار السياسي و الإقتصادي؟ بعبارة أخرى, ما هو مصيرمبدأ الكرامة الوطنية في خضم التحول السياسي المتأثر بعوامل إقليمية و خارجية؟

لعل إعادة صياغة الكرامة الوطنية بحيث تكون مبدءا وطنيا غير محتكر من حزب أو توجه سياسي, هو من أولويات

المرحلة للأسباب التالية

أولا: إعادة هيكلة خطاب الكرامة الوطنية, الجامع لكل السوريين, على مبدأ وطني هوجهد يعزز الوحدة الوطنية

ثانيا: مرحلة "فك الإرتباط" بالنهج السياسي للنظام السابق تجد لها مخرجا أخلاقيا, بدل أن يكون مدخل للإتهام بالعمالة و الخيانة الوطنية

ثالثا: تبرئة الكرامة الوطنية من الإحتكار الحزبي يمهد الطريق للتنافس السياسي على أسس منهجية من خلال التعددية

السياسية

سوريا حبيبتي.. الحرية و الكرامة

Meeting in Damascus: Guideline of The Three "No"s

Today marked a qualitative leap forward for the Syrian opposition. The opposition, around two hundred individuals, some flew from overseas, met in a private estate on the outskirts of Damascus today. The government denied them a permit to meet in a public space, in return the organizers denied the crew of the official Syrian tv channel to be present at the meeting. What made this meeting qualitatively distinct from the dozens of opposition meetings and conferences held in Paris, Istanbul, Doha, etc. is that for the first time an actual demand sheet was read in the conference representing the demands of the protesters.

This meeting, in other words, was held to provide a forum to support the actual protesters and their demands, instead of being a platform to leap onto the shoulders of those protesters to advance other agendas. Furthermore, this meeting included a diverse representation of the opposition, which reflects the true fabric of Syrian society.

This meeting also concluded with what has become to be known as the "three no s", namely:

No to foreign intervention
No to violence
No to sectarianism

More opposition groups seem to start to converge to this baseline of the three No s. What is also noteworthy is that the business community in both Aleppo and Damascus seem to lean to the moderate opposition line, which was represented by this meeting today in Damascus.

These recent developments reflect the general sensitivity of the Syrian population regarding: 1) the Iraqi experience, and 2) the Lebanese experience. Syrians in general detest the notion of a Syrian expatriate coming to "save" their country in an American armered vehicle. Even worse, they do not want foreign forces to invade and wreck havoc in their country. In addition, Syrians detest the sectarian governing systems in both Lebanon and Iraq, which on the outset is placed to protect the rights of all sects and ethnicities but in reality the system ingrains the frictions between the sects.

The three No s are a start. This ethical stance of the opposition in Damascus today provides an inclusive platform on which all Syrians can participate and be part of.

سوريا حبيبتي.. الحرية و الكرامة