External pressure on Bashar al-Assad's regime must be complementary to a galvanised Syrian opposition
Comments (89)
Rami Khouri
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 April 2012 21.30 BST
Article history
'The ability of Syria's opposition groups to form a more coherent movement will be the crucial factor in toppling Bashar al-Assad'. Photograph: AP
The UN action in support of the call from special envoy Kofi Annan for a total ceasefire in Syria on 12 April is, like all security council presidential statements, a lot like a new year's resolution – sincere, grounded in real needs and aspirations, but really difficult to implement.
Of the several different but linked issues at play here, three will determine its fate: the capacity of the security council to intervene in a sovereign state's affairs; the Syrian government's sense of its own durability; and the capacity of the opposition to challenge and change the Damascus ruling elite. And my impression is that the ability of the opposition groups to form a more coherent movement will be the crucial factor, drawing on the substantial support they have generated in the Middle East and around the world.
I say this because recent history suggests that the iron will of both the security council and stubborn sovereign governments tend to balance out each other. If military force is employed, as in Kosovo or Libya, global coalitions of states can oust governments. Barring that, only the determination, efficacy and sacrifice of authentic indigenous movements for freedom and citizens' rights, teamed with global political support, can topple governments and usher in more democratic rule, as perhaps Burma demonstrates.
The security council has recently coalesced around a political position that calls for ending the fighting by all sides, and a negotiated political transition in Syria. This leaves open the fate of the Assad family and regime, which is why Russia, China and others – who had rejected moves led by the Arab League and US to demand that President Assad leave office – accept this position. This serious global intent does not guarantee all parties comply with the security council demands. Showing a seriousness and determination that transcend even the dramatic frowns and glares of Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, the council also warned of "further steps" should the Syrian government persist in its assaults on civilians.
The government and the Syrian National Council opposition have both agreed to the terms of Annan's peace plan, which is fascinating, but not necessarily much beyond that for now. The SNC is very much the junior partner, given its limited military capability in the face of the government's massive use of force. Even with the financing coming to its forces from Saudi Arabia and others, the SNC military wing can operate only in the realm of limited guerrilla attacks. Despite many accusations, nobody has presented convincing evidence of al-Qaida-like Salafi militants who are also said to be fighting the regime, including perhaps by setting off bombs in major cities.
The reality of the regime's response to revolts since the early 1980s has been very clear: smash the opposition and punish their towns and neighbourhoods, so they never dare to revolt again. This is one important way in which Syria differs from other Arab revolutions. In Tunisia, President Ben Ali fled the country. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak sent camel-riding thugs to Tahrir Square. But Assad unleashed thousands of tanks, artillery, snipers, torturers, rapists and roaming killer gangs across the entire country. Assad's track record since April 2011 has been consistent and unambiguous: strike hard to punish demonstrators and deter their supporters, and engage in any available diplomatic process only as a secondary track.
Assad's problem is that his strategy, reflecting his father's legacy from the 1970s and 80s, no longer works. The more he ravages largely unarmed civilian demonstrators who challenge his legitimacy, the greater becomes the intensity and breadth of the revolt, and the parallel support for removing him from around the region and the world. It is still unclear, though, how the growing determination among millions of Syrians to change their government will translate into practical political assets that could actually end Assad's family rule.
This is the key to change in Syria. Action from abroad, including unanimous security council decisions, can only succeed if they enhance the opposition's ability to whittle away the regime's bases of support, especially through economic pressure that reduces the regime's ability to pay its supporters and pacify the population.
Security council statements since the approval of the Annan mission indicate that international pressure on the Assad regime will continue – but this will only be a complementary arena to the more significant ability of the Syrian opposition movements to undermine the regime from within.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
• © 2012 Rami Khouri – distributed by Agence Global
***
89 comments displaying ...
CraigSummers
9 April 2012 9:58PM
Mr. Khouri
".....The security council has recently coalesced around a political position that calls for ending the fighting by all sides, and a negotiated political transition in Syria. This leaves open the fate of the Assad family and regime, which is why Russia, China and others – who had rejected moves led by the Arab League and US to demand that President Assad leave office – accept this position......"
The attraction is the removal of Assad by a negotiated solution which certainly can save a lot of bloodshed, but it's not Russia and China that hold the cards although their support is critical for unanimous UN support. The next Syrian government must be negotiated. Hezbollah and Iran hold the cards because this is a geopolitical fight between the west and their Arab allies and Iran - and her allies which include the Assad regime.
Assad succeeds (thus far), in part, because of the support he recieves from Hezbollah and Iran. The threat of a long and bloody civil war rest on their support, and its that threat which deters the west from supporting the Syrian opposition militarily. That's how this conflict differs considerably from Libya. This is a complex geopolityical battle where the Syrian people are caught in the cross fire. Freedom is not so simple in the Middle East where geopolitics reigns supreme.
Celtiberico
9 April 2012 11:36PM
I'd say Turkey is the key: if Ankara decides to take a fully-active part by launching incursions into Syria, then Assad's days are numbered.
The crucial aspect to this would be reaction in Moscow and Tehran (and to a much lesser degree, Beijing). I am uncomfortably reminded of Balkan politics in the early 20th century - and I hope we all remember how that turned out...
ObviouslyNot
9 April 2012 11:49PM
External pressure on Bashar al-Assad's regime must be complementary to a galvanised Syrian opposition
Haven't these people already had their Arab Spring?
nocausetoaddopt
10 April 2012 12:30AM
Response to Celtiberico, 9 April 2012 11:36PM
Sound analysis.
Nato,s presence in Iraq is now compromising and
marginalising the whole region.
I hear also from a reliable source that , worryingly,
that pro Syrian Lebanese are leaving in droves.
Ominous.
geronimo
10 April 2012 12:50AM
In international relations at governmental level, there are only competing perceived short-term national or rather ruling-elite self-interests, usually dressed up as incoherent and inconsistent 'principles' for domestic audiences.
I wish something like the old Guardian or old BBC - before the days when they were so strapped for cash and intimidated they had to just relay government propaganda feed rather than analyse the 'news' - was around to explain the complex competing interests in the current Syrian Problem.
But in a wired world with dwindling advertising revenues, that kind of semi-objective news is history, so I have to set the state propaganda relayed by the BBC and Guardian against the state propaganda of RT, to try to begin to work out what's really going on.
Oh well, things could be worse. At least I'm not a Christian refugee from ethnically-cleansed Homs.
___________________________________
Any article which depends for its argument on some imaginary group called 'the Syrian Opposition' is not worth printing (or reading).
Can we instead have an article which addresses the relation between the Syrian Question and the Kurdish Question in Turkey, the western geostrategy of rolling back old Russian clients in the ME before China moves in, the rise of Qatar as western regional policeman, the emerging Shia-Sunni regional conflict - that sort of thing?
OneTop
10 April 2012 1:07AM
The ability of Syria's opposition groups to form a more coherent movement will be the crucial factor in toppling Bashar al-Assad
This is nothing but good old fashioned regime change.
The house of Saud along with the GCC have openly declared it a "duty" to arm and provide weapons to the Syrian opposition. They have already ponied up over $100 million to pay the mercenaries (aka revolutionaries).
Meanwhile the US has pledged to provide "humanitarian" aid, ( satellite equipment, night vision goggles and tactical support.)
Just one more incidence of exploiting the age old rift between the Sunnis and the Shia by outsiders. In the meantime those paragons of democracy, Saudi Arabia have pledged to turn loose idle oil production, should things get out of hand. For doing so, the US will give them the missile defence shield --- you know, for protection against Iran.
If one thinks this has anything to do with democracy then simply talk to Iraq as they recognize the fact that Saudi Arabia and the rest of the autocratic GCC is arming the opposition rather than take any steps toward calming things down.
edwardrice
10 April 2012 1:29AM
... my impression is that the ability of the opposition groups to form a more coherent movement will be the crucial factor, drawing on the substantial support they have generated in the Middle East and around the world.
''the substantial support they have generated in the Middle East''
From Saudi Arabia. Comforting
constitutionforever
10 April 2012 1:37AM
Why does CIF support regime change in Sunni naitons like SA and Yemen yet is aghast at the samething happening in Shia nations?
zionysus
10 April 2012 1:51AM
Saudi Arabia, Oman, US, UK, Israel, Turkey... are hell bent on seeing Iran's only ally in the ME as destabilised.
This faux legitimacy quasi intellectuals want to daub over this inevitability makes me want to vomit.
edwardrice
10 April 2012 1:51AM
Response to CraigSummers, 9 April 2012 9:58PM
That's how this conflict differs considerably from Libya.
What is happening in Libya? I know Nato bombed the country and backed GCC 'rebels'.
geronimo
10 April 2012 1:55AM
Response to constitutionforever, 10 April 2012 1:37AM
Why doesn't CiF have an inanity filter?
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 1:58AM
Response to edwardrice, 10 April 2012 1:29AM
Edward
"....From Saudi Arabia. Comforting....."
And the 10000 killed already by Assad? They don't seem to make much difference to you. But you have always supported that position. Nothing new there......
geronimo
10 April 2012 2:06AM
From the LA Times:
The Syrian Orthodox Church is worried about “an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians” in the embattled city of Homs, reports Agenzia Fides, the official Vatican news agency.
Anti-government militants have expelled 90% of Christians in Homs and confiscated their residences by force, said Fides, citing a note sent to the agency by the Syrian Orthodox Church.
The Vatican agency cited sources saying militants went door to door in the Homs neighborhoods of Hamidiya and Bustan al-Diwan, “forcing Christians to flee, without giving them the chance to take their belongings.”
Estimates vary, but Syria’s Christians, with ancient roots, are generally said to represent as much as 10% of the nation’s 23 million people.
Syria’s Christian community has generally been regarded as supportive of the secular goverment of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which, despite its systematic repression of political dissent, has been tolerant of religious minorities.
No problem for the Senator for Tel Aviv, Joe Lieberman... but it could start to give his gungho airhead travelling companion to Turkey, Planecrash McCain, and the GOP fundamentalists back home, a bit of a headache.
edwardrice
10 April 2012 2:10AM
Action from abroad, including unanimous security council decisions, can only succeed if they enhance the opposition's ability to whittle away the regime's bases of support, especially through economic pressure that reduces the regime's ability to pay its supporters and pacify the population.
'economic pressure'
'We Think the Price Is Worth It'
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 2:15AM
Response to geronimo, 10 April 2012 2:06AM
geromimo
".....Syria’s Christian community has generally been regarded as supportive of the secular goverment of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which, despite its systematic repression of political dissent, has been tolerant of religious minorities...."
Are you selling the current regime in Syria as tolerant? That's entirely laughable. Indeed, do you really care about the Christian community in Syria, or they to be used as a political football for your convenience?
Assad is a brutal dictator - an equal opportunity murderer of the oppsition in Syria - and that extends to Lebanon as well.
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 2:20AM
Response to edwardrice, 10 April 2012 2:10AM
Edward
".....Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?...."
The fault lied entirely with Saddam who could have cooperated with the inspectors. He could have honored the peace agreement that he signed - but he didn't. Instead, he chose the aletrnative which was for his own people to suffer - and die. To try to blame the US or the west is absurd.
edwardrice
10 April 2012 2:31AM
Response to CraigSummers, 10 April 2012 1:58AM
And the 10000 killed already by Assad?
''10000 killed''
Israeli's nato friend Turkey killed 35 civilians a few months ago.
They were Kurds.
geronimo
10 April 2012 2:31AM
Response to CraigSummers, 10 April 2012 2:15AM
Are you selling the current regime in Syria as tolerant? That's entirely laughable. Indeed, do you really care about the Christian community in Syria, or they to be used as a political football for your convenience?
Er, that wasn't my viewpoint, Craig - it's the official view of the gay pinko Vatican.
But never mind - it must all be terribly complicated trying to fit Syria into your otherwise tediously predictable campaigning at this website you hate so much you cannot keep away.
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 2:44AM
Response to geronimo, 10 April 2012 2:31AM
geronimo
"......But never mind - it must all be terribly complicated trying to fit Syria into your otherwise tediously predictable campaigning at this website you hate so much you cannot keep away....."
Only because of the extreme left wingers that frequent this site. You guys are predictably hypocritical and predictable in your "concern" for Christians when it suits you politically.
".....New York-based Human Rights Watch has cited witness statements accusing the Syrian rebels of torture, kidnapping and executions, among other "serious human rights abuses." But Human Rights Watch and other monitors say the scale of government abuse -- including wholesale shelling of neighborhoods, mass detentions and extrajudicial executions -- dwarfs reports of abuse by the opposition....."
This should be your primary concern - if human rights mean anything to you - but they don't - thus your support for Assad (and your sudden concern for the Christian community).....
geronimo
10 April 2012 2:50AM
On the complex question of Turkey's calculations on the impact of Syria on the Kurdish question, it might be noted that the 'Free Syrian Army' is based in the camps just inside Kurdish Turkey (scene of the latest contested incident), from where it operates under Turkish military and intelligence cover.
Turkey's basic calculation - beyond the old NATO strategy of full-spectrum dominance between Turkey and the Gulf & Sixth Fleet - seems to be to divide the domestic Kurdish opposition (please don't mention genocide, or the self-determination promised the Kurds in 1918) between secular and islamist factions, and between aligned opposition to Damascus, and the old opposition to Ankara.
As always, all the crap about humanitarian principles is just cynical duplicitous crap. As with all players in the Syrian Question, the complex deadly game is about perceived short/medium term domestic self-interest of ruling elites.
And with the Old West / BRICS rebalancing being played out ever closer to Iran, this is all, in some sense, the beginning of the endgame in the region, if not the wider world.
There's a really fascinating article to be written about what the competing elites in the US, and their old coldwar enemies in Moscow and Peking hope to get out of this ME showdown.
But I don't expect to read it here.
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 2:53AM
Response to edwardrice, 10 April 2012 2:31AM
edwardrice
"....Israeli's nato friend Turkey killed 35 civilians a few months ago.
They were Kurds....."
First of all, Israel and Turkey are hardly best of friends. Secondly, Israel is not a member of NATO. Thirdly, I don't support the killing of the 35 Kurds unless it results from acts of terrorism against Turkey. Fourthly, Since when is 35 deaths the same as 10000, or 35 deaths in retaliation for terrorism the same as innocent demonstrators being brutally murdered?? After all, if I remember correctly, you severly criticized Israel for the death of 700-800 civilians during Operation Cast Lead. Now 35 is the same as 10000??
geronimo
10 April 2012 3:12AM
Response to CraigSummers, 10 April 2012 2:44AM
geronimo
But never mind - it must all be terribly complicated trying to fit Syria into your otherwise tediously predictable campaigning at this website you hate so much you cannot keep away...
Only because of the extreme left wingers that frequent this site. You guys are predictably hypocritical and predictable in your "concern" for Christians when it suits you politically.
I guess Left and Right are relative terms. On Planet Summers, the Pope is an extreme leftwinger, who noble crusaders (with pointy white hats?) must rally to confront at CiF, lest the dam burst and civilization fail.
But really, I don't quite get it. Unless the postslavery American far right is so dominated by irrational fear and hatred (as academic research - of course academics are by definition ultra-leftists - suggests) that they need to daily ride into the enemy camp on their white horses, and slash around a bit, set a few things on fire, before they can enjoy breakfast. Why don't you guys spend more time at the - to you - centre-left Daily Mail instead? Not enough shouting and fighting to work up an appetite?
PS: please cite any line in any post over the last 2 years where I have expressed support for the timid London opthalmologist or the Palace Old Guard bequeathed by his father and running Syria. And if you could be bothered to trail through 6 years of my archived contributions to this site, you'd also discover that I support minority rights in any country (the Kurdish right to self-determination promised a century ago, but still absent in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, for example).
But hey - that's too much like hard work. Keep on attacking your favourite straw men here and in your dreams, and in future I'll just ignore all your hectoring posts, which aren't really addressed to me, anyway.
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 3:24AM
geronimo
OK. What is your concern for pointing out how brutal the opposition is to the Assad regime - but not Assad himself? What do you fear? I am more than willing to listen to your side of the Syrian story. I see a brutal oppressiver regime willing to kill any number of people to retain power. What do you fear if he is overthrown - by the will of the people?
Musa1
10 April 2012 5:09AM
Does the West's secular ideologies have an answer to the crisis in Syria?
Will the Western World Order prevail over Syria?
Is SCO creeping into NATO's lebensraum via Syria, and is this a form of payback for NATO's creep in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe?
Why aren't there more analyses into how the SCO and its allies like Algeria seen as strategizing on maintaining and propping up Bashar to sustain their own lebensraum?
And why should Syrian people have to put the 'strategic interests' of either Nato or Sco as priorities or even of secondary importance when it comes to determining their affairs?
johnandanne
10 April 2012 5:30AM
Rami Khouri Your analysis of the situation in Syria is faulted.
The UN resolve to achieve a cease fire cannot possibly succeed whilst some of it's members actively support through arms, equipment and money, assistance and guidance to those opposed to Assad.
Assad is fighting for his survival, as any Sovereign leader would, anywhere in the World, if it were being attacked by a foreign backed insurgency. (This does not absolve Assad from any guilt in crimes he might have committed, but by the same token the same rules apply to those attacking or supporting the insurgency)
As in Libya, the insurgency has to a large extent been so long running only because of external support. Look at the agenda's of those Countries fueling the fight. A change of regime in Syria suits the USA above all in its ultimate goal of an assault on Iran. (The Middle-Eastern Countries and Turkey that are seen to be providing arms to the rebels are dependant on the USA supporting those Countries)
Many ordinary people sincerely hope for peace in Syria, but sadly we are helpless, as we seem unable to influence any of the main players in this tradegy
Goelsubhas
10 April 2012 5:47AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
ColinSydney
10 April 2012 5:48AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Keo2008
10 April 2012 6:19AM
Response to Goelsubhas, 10 April 2012 5:47AM
An extraordinarily silly post
"Externmal Agencies" such as Russia may have helped cause the problem by supporting tinpot dictators, but the problem would not be solved if Russia simply went away.
You know nothing of the History of Syria if you think there was no problem in Syria until a year ago. Syria has been plagued by Coups, dictatorships, tyranny and rebellions for nearly 100 years
Russia does not have the means or wish to conquer Syria. Britain France and Israel did not try to colonise Egypt in 1956. It wasn't Russia but the USA who stopped Suez. And in any case you totally contradict yourself- if external powers are the cause of the problem, how on earth could an invasion by one of them help?
This has to be one of the silliest and self-contradictory posts on CiF this year
Keo2008
10 April 2012 6:23AM
Response to edwardrice, 10 April 2012 1:29AM
Ah good old Edward...always ready to point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the West, never those of Russia or those of tinpot Middle Eastern dictators
OK, having got your dislike of western involvement off your chest, what would be your solution to the problem of Assad persistently murdering his own people? You think he should be left to get on with it?
That would be perfectly logical- after all it's our policy towards North Korea, Zimbabwe, and sundry other dictatorships, but it would be good to see you spell out what you think should or should not be done
Laikainspace
10 April 2012 6:24AM
Frankly, I given up attempting to define what's happening in Syria, beyond the hope that the killing stops, it's just a canvas for people to paint with whatever hue their ideology is.
And a magnet for the tinhats.
The best I've heard that it's Russia & China backing the Assad regime because they want to keep the Syrian/Israel boarder quiet, because.....apparently Israel has at some stages sold them arms.
Laikainspace
10 April 2012 6:35AM
Response to Musa1, 10 April 2012 5:09AM
And why should Syrian people have to put the 'strategic interests' of either Nato or Sco as priorities or even of secondary importance when it comes to determining their affairs?
Then you'd agree that Shia Muslims in Bahrain also deserve the same lack of inteference I'm assuming Musa
jekylnhyde
10 April 2012 7:41AM
This is making us all look stupid. The UN, NATO, the Arab League, the EU, the Woman's Institute ........ Assad, unless somebody stops him, is going to murder all opposition as his father did. What do adolescents say? Get used to it.
Musa1
10 April 2012 7:53AM
Response to Laikainspace, 10 April 2012 6:35AM
By your logic, I cannot abject to the rape of my sister unless I acquiesce to you sleeping with my wife.
ScottishLady
10 April 2012 7:59AM
Syria - key to change - we must sieze control of Syria - now that we have illegally invaded Iran and LIbya (as the Empire rises).
Next we must sieze control of Iran
And now we will join forces with Japan and attack North Korea
It's all coming together - global terror laws to establish the new Reich - private sector companies arming their gunboats to ensure the people cannot flee the terror in boats
Private security companies controlling policing, passports, airports, roads, transport -
The British government planning to use chemical weapons against their own people - should they protest!
Oh England - if you won't stand up for yourselves and throw out this coalition you are doomed
Why strike, why march - just organise bi-elections. Simple. When a government is corrupt they cannot use chemical weapons and private security guards and police against you when you organise an election in each consituency. It is alot cheaper than striking.
If a teacher against reform stands - I'll vote for them - sorry soldiers but I won't vote for you if you want to be a teacher - but I will if you want to be a soldier)
If a policeman stands I'll vote for them (I certainly won't vote for a private security guard from G4S who the government want to replace our policemen with)
If a bin man stands - I'll vote for him over Jabba the Hut
If a college lecturer stands - I'll vote for him over Michael Gove
If a shop owner stands - I'll vote for them over an internet online "entrepeneur" who does not pay tax on the profits
If a doctor against reform stands - I'll vote for the doctor over Lansley
If a Labour councillor stands I'd vote for them rather than a member of the shadow cabinet (they are all new labour anyway)
If a border guard stands - I'll vote for them over Theresa May
If a university lecturer against tuition fees stands - I'll vote for them over Clegg
If a businessman who pays decent wages and gives decent conditions to his workers stands - I'll vote for him over Vince Cable
If a soldier stands - I'll vote for the soldier over the defence secretary
Yes - we have the power - this government has no mandate - so let's organise the general election now - because this government has no morals and no mandate - so no more
Achilles0200
10 April 2012 8:11AM
edwardrice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's reverse the equation of responsibility. It could be said that half a million Iraqi children were sacrificed by the Iraqi regime rather than to accede to not unreasonable international requirements. This being a regime that had launched a war that itself had caused at least half a million (maybe a million) deaths when it invaded Iraq. And there was the later invasion of Kuwait.
Edward, why is it that you consistently try to deflect criticism away from the most odious regimes in order to spin your bullying US imperialism narrative. Tell us how much you admire the North Koreans and how the deaths of possibly millions of their people has been caused by the US and not their own economic mismanagement and self-inflicted burden of excessive militarisation.
Rabbit8
10 April 2012 8:59AM
The fall of a Tyrant
Celtiberico
10 April 2012 9:18AM
Response to nocausetoaddopt, 10 April 2012 12:30AM
pro-Syrian Lebanese? Do you mean pro-Assad, or pro-Alawi, and are they leaving Lebanon, or Syria? I would be rather surprised if the latter, as most Shia and many Christians in Lebanon have scant sympathy for a revolt which they feel would result in Sunni hegemony over their cousins in Syria.
geronimo
10 April 2012 9:55AM
Look, all you crusaders...
The Western press and broadcast media are full each day of Bashar's atrocities. Many of the reports may be partly or completely true. Some are doubtless fabricated, as many reports from Libya were, others are grossly distorted by the NATO psy-ops that, even after Afghanistan, Iraq and most notably Libya, the western 'mainstream media' (sadly including the once great BBC and Guardian) haven't the resources or imagination to question. Nearly all mainstream reporting on Syria, as on Libya last year, is ridiculously selective and biased.
Many of the people who post here are simply trying to correct the blatant bias of the media relay of the NATO feed - which suggests a peaceful united opposition to the Old Regime in Damascus, independent of external agents and interests, and grotesquely misrepresents cynical, hypocritical, duplicitous Western and Gulf self-interest as humanitarian concern.
But really, I wonder more and more if there's any point coming back here to CiF, which when I first started posting in 2001 ('Guardian Unlimited') provided a real forum for the exchange of ideas and views complementary to material above the line.
Guardian Media Group, in pursuit of a new business model as advertising revenues plummet ('Comment is Free, but News is Expensive') seems to be promoting provocation to increase pageviews. Many of the best posters have been driven away by the pointless polemic, and it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the rightwing trolling, mostly American, that so often disrupts and distorts online communication between those old 'Guardian Readers' who are left.
I've often wondered over the last couple of years whether a 'hide poster' button allowing groups of readers over time to define their own 'communities', and leave the wreckers to talk to each other (I guess they'd soon get pretty bored) would help... but it probably wouldn't fit the new business model of a rowdy pub where the dogmatic teetotallers come in ever-increasing droves looking for a fight.
SirBasilZaharoff
10 April 2012 10:02AM
The only choice Syrians will ever have in the next 2-3 generations is:
a) a secular repressive authoritarian regime; or
b) a religious repressive authoritarian regime.
We in the West should keep well clear from any involvement.
Euroczar
10 April 2012 10:24AM
Iraq,Afghanistan, Lybia to name but a few are all in total chaos so why not add another to the number,,,,,
I watched easter celebrations on Syrian TV and frankly was not surprised that not one of the western media reported that the Chrstian hierarchy in Syria fear they will be massacred by these so called 'rebels', once assad is toppled. Apparently these so caled freedom fighters are infiltrated by nothing more than islamic contract killers/mercenaries taking control of neighbourhoods to attack security forces. In Homs they have already stared burning churches.
So much for 2 sides of the story eh,,,,,
horma
10 April 2012 10:29AM
@geronimo
@CraigSummers
For a moment, I've tried to imagine both of you living in the same country, with both of you having a certain amount of armed forces at your disposal. And I'm a third country having to decide which side I'm going to support. I would clearly favor geronimo over CraigSummmers - sorry Craig, no points for you in this argument - but I would not supply any arms to either of you. Just as I would do in Syria.
With all the reports we get from inside Syria (though not necessarily in this paper), we can be quite sure that the opposition is just as brutal as the government. Amongst the non-armed population, both sides - the pro- and the anti-Assad movements, keep saying that they don't want arms to be send to the opposition. Syriens are well educated people, and generally rather peaceful and tolerant. They don't want civil war: they want a BETTER life, not a WORSE one.
Assad's demand for garanties for the opposition to lay down arms should be satisfied. Any other option just doesn't make sense to me. If the opposition refuses to give such garanties, well then - who the hell are we dealing with?
sjxt
10 April 2012 10:36AM
Assad's problem is that his strategy, reflecting his father's legacy from the 1970s and 80s, no longer works.
Surely the balance of the evidence at the moment is to the contrary?
geronimo
10 April 2012 10:56AM
Response to horma, 10 April 2012 10:29AM
Thanks for the nonlethal support...
Actually, I can't think of any war in my rather long lifetime that was definitely a good idea, and most were definitely not a good idea for most people in countries affected. Most were initiated and fought 'on a false prospectus' (as Menzies Campbell liked to say of Iraq) and mainly served the interests of military-industrial-political complexes in one or more superpower (Ike was persuaded to remove the 'political' component from the draft of his famous valedictory address).
Every time I hear politicians say, as with Syria, Nobody wants War, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There are always plenty of people who think they will benefit from any prospective war, and a lot of people have made an awful lot of money in the last decade from wrecking whole countries and destabilizing the whole world.
So I'll stick to my paltry weapon of choice, words, and try even to control verbal polemic, though it's sometimes difficult here, when an old 'Guardian Reader's' sorrow and frustration at the warlike direction Guardian online comment has taken over the last decade kicks in.
And I'll try to remember Shaftesbury's remark that satire is the most powerful weapon, when I need one.
Jaiysun44
10 April 2012 10:58AM
The middle east is messed up. If you try and overthrow a regime to spread democracy you get sectarian civil war, jihadi terrorism, a terrible situation. I hate to say it, but unless we want to spill that much blood, relatively benevolent dictators are about as good as it gets
david119
10 April 2012 11:43AM
Response to CraigSummers, 10 April 2012 2:15AM
Are you selling the current regime in Syria as tolerant?
If you are a Christian, you will certainly find the Assad regime more tolerant than the one the West installed in Baghdad.
This isn't at all an argument for Assad's brutality. He should go. But at the same time, we should recognise that Syria is a complicated mix of different religious groups. A Sunni hegemony will not be pleasant for the religious minorities. Probably not much we can do about that.
Getting rid of Assad is probably only the start of a very unpleasant story not at all the end.
If Saudi Arabia is so keen on the self determination of neighbouring states it could more usefully start with Bahrain. If America is so keen on the human rights of Syrians and Iranians, why does it ignore those in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ?
Keo2008
10 April 2012 12:10PM
Response to geronimo, 10 April 2012 9:55AM
Of course we might learn more about the truth of what's happening in Syria if Assad let in reporters and gave them freedom to do their job.
Anyone would think Assad has something to hide....
Keo2008
10 April 2012 12:18PM
Response to geronimo, 10 April 2012 9:55AM
You are not the first person to claim that "good" posters get driven away from CiF by hordes of trolling right-wingers.
It would seem that some posters only like to comment on sites where everyone else agrees with them. Well, that's tough. There are phrases about not staying in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat that spring to mind.
There have been many occasions when I have been assailed by large numbers of hostile posters denouncing me as a warmonger, Imperialist and Neo-Con. In one notorious case a poster tried to get me permanently banned because I dared to disagree with his description of Colonel Gaddafi as a bening, democratic and popular leader.
It would appear that some posters (and I do not include yourself) like to dish out the biased comments but don't like it when the criticisms come in their direction.
Sorry, but your complaint don't impress me much. Having read and contributed to CiF for around 7 years now, I see no evidence of such organised trolling on the increase.
And no doubt this post will receive some criticisms- fine. I expect my views to be challenged.
Unlike some posters it would seem
CraigSummers
10 April 2012 1:03PM
Response to david119, 10 April 2012 11:43AM
David119
“.....If Saudi Arabia is so keen on the self determination of neighbouring states it could more usefully start with Bahrain. If America is so keen on the human rights of Syrians and Iranians, why does it ignore those in Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ?.....”
If the US was supporting the brutal Assad regime and the accompanying murder, the left (and the world) would - rightly - be highly critical of the US. Unfortunately, the US deflects criticism from Assad because of their support for the opposition even though the US gets this one right (yes, partly for geopolitical considerations). As everyone already understands, the US is driven to a large extent by geopolitical interests - just like every other state. In that context, if the US supported a democracy in Bahrain, this could lead to a strengthening of Iranian regional power - which the US opposes like the plague.
Unfortunately, the US/west cannot keep 500,000,000 Arabs in bondage because it fears an Islamic takeover of a key economic region. So Bahrain (principally) with minority rule is going to have to change. This will come about more quickly after internally-driven regime change in Iran.
“......If you are a Christian, you will certainly find the Assad regime more tolerant than the one the West installed in Baghdad.....”
Really? In other words, as long as you don’t demand reform or basic human rights and you tow the line with a brutal dictator, Assad won’t bother you. That’s your idea of tolerance?
Sectarian based ethnic cleansing and widespread religious- and ethnic-based murder were common during the Iraq war - and to a lesser extent after the war ended (the low grade civil war continues). Who brought that on? It was Saddam who treated the Shia and Kurds as second class citizens during his twenty year reign - when he wasn’t murdering or torturing them in his minority Sunni-led police state. Calling Assad and Saddam Hussein “more” tolerant is ridiculous, if not idiotic.
Under Saddam Hussein, according to Wikipedia:
“......Secret police, torture, murders, rape, abductions, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control.[original research?] The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture......”
and
".......Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms and power stations....."
And that's more tolerant? It was the minority Sunnis that ruled the country over the majority Shia (and Kurds). The sectarian divide in Iraq was largely the result of Saddam's own doing. Interestingly enough, the majority Shia are rightly ruling in Iraq today over the objection of the disposed Sunnis in a confessionalist government which at least represents interests along the sectarian divide - Jews and Christians excluded of course. The Iraqis vote. But, no one is going to change the sectarian divide over night. That’s a certainty. It could take decades to bring about stability in Iraq (look at Lebanon twenty years after their civil war ended).
geronimo
10 April 2012 1:20PM
Rightwing trolls mostly just come here for a fight, pure and simple, and it's counterproductive to feed their confrontational demands. Constructive discussion and debate requires some shared goodwill, and a shared commitment to Reason, in the attempt to move beyond limited and partial perspectives to a wider, deeper view.
And attempting constructive discussion with people who think the World is flat and Copernicanism is a leftwing conspiracy, that anthropogenic climate change is a leftwing conspiracy, that evolution by natural selection is a leftwing conspiracy (and so on and on...) is, I have learned far too slowly, a silly fantasy and a huge waste of time and intellectual energy.
I'm prepared to engage with a Burkean conservative who thinks others shouldn't try and fix something he or she doesn't think is broken (banking, say), but I'm no longer prepared to contribute to the destruction of what remains of the Scott Trust's mission by being drawn into a pointlessly repetitive trading of blinkered lazy rhetoric.
Feeding time over.
MikeStafford
10 April 2012 1:35PM
If ever there was a war in which we shouldn't be involved, its this one.
On one side we have the regime of Bashir Al-Assad - brutal, ruthless, backed by Hezbollah and Iran.
On the other side we have Sunni militants - Islamists backed by the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda.
I'm actually inclined to support the regime given that it protects minorities and allows women a certain degree of human rights. You can be sure that the Sunnis will roll things back on all fronts and that the alternative to Assad will be Sharia.
Liberal western democracy simply isn't on the agenda.
______________
WHAT DO YOU THINK ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào, có ý kiến- phê bình gì qua bài viết "Syria's key to real change" và 50 ý kiến- phê bình từ "89 Comments" của độc giả ?
Tất cả những tên độc tài khát máu, GIẾT người, GIẾT dân không gớm tay, tàn bạo phi nhân tính cùng các chế độ ĐỘC tài, ĐỘC đảng đều đáng GHÊ TỞM và sẽ NÊN, PHẢI BỊ LẬT ĐỔ, BỊ TIÊU DIỆT để thay vào đó những người lãnh đạo được lòng dân, được dân bầu lên với chế độ tự do dân chủ, ở đó QUYỀN LÀM NGƯỜI được tôn trọng.
and
and ..
Những tên cầm quyền độc tài, bạo ác không sớm thì muộn, chắc chắn sẽ có kết cuộc Ô NHỤC như nhau .
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
13042012
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment