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