Waiting for a miracle
9/4/12 21:10![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
htpcl.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSalaam alaikum, akhii wa ukhtii brothaz & sistaz! A long time ago a former Syrian president probably made the best depiction of the relation between Syrians and authority: "Half claim the vocation of leader, a quarter believe they are prophets, and at least ten percent take themselves for gods". This aphorism belongs to Shukri al-Quwatli and it explains the difficulties the so-called "friends of Syria" (Hillary Clinton among them) are having with defining "our friend the Syrian people". Just take a look at the recent international meeting in Tunisia. It also failed to bring any clarity on the issue. Now the rebels are feeling abandoned, and the Syrian opposition remains as divided as ever.
In Tunisia the Syrian National Council couldn't come up as a united body representing the opposition forces. And how could it? Most of its members have an air of selfishness about themselves that's so dense it borders on narcissism. They're stuck in hopeless bickering, and they've eventually let themselves get dominated by the Islamists. Meanwhile, until now they haven't welcomed even one Alawite, although this could've been such a simple and yet powerfully symbolic gesture of unity and reconciliation. All that matters is that the hated Assad clique is coming from that sect, plus many of the top guys in the state security forces. So that's a sufficient reason to completely marginalize an entire segment of the Syrian society. And that's just one example.
In Tunisia the National Council requested arms for the rebels, but the "friends of Syria" are still hesitating, and for a reason. A humanitarian corridor, a buffer zone, a no-fly zone - all these ideas contain a serious potential for escalation, and that scares the West.
What's worse, the international inaction also looks like a bad scenario. Those guys who are besieged in Homs won't be helped through US or German calls for Assad to step down. They're now pretty much on their own, alone with their troubles and forced to rely on their own powers alone. Unlike the rebels in Libya.
Even those among Assad's opponents who for a while in the beginning of the rebellion could still be won through initiatives such as that too-little-too-late constitutional referendum, have now become radicalized too. Sunni jihadists are jumping over from Iraq and finding fertile soil for their activities. They're offering assistance to those to whom help won't come from anywhere else. And they're gaining positions.
The bad news for the peace-loving democrats is that diplomacy hasn't brought any results either. The special UN envoy Kofi Annan will have to do a miracle if he wants to at least convince the warring sides to put the guns down for a while and sit at the table. For Assad's regime it's all become a matter of physical survival now. And the rebels know this applies to them too. The weapons are getting bigger, the casualties heavier, the hatred deeper. And we're still just in the beginning of all this.
The problems are mostly within the opposition itself. There are various groups who don't even want to sit in the same room and talk to each other, let along bringing their efforts in a united front against the regime. Much like the international community, the population is confused about who they should support. The division is very deep.
The weakness of the Syrian opposition comes from 5 decades of heavy-fisted dictatorship. For the last half a century no political debate was possible in Syria, and many smart people have fled abroad. The rebellion has lasted for more than a year now and the opposition is still as split and anaemic as it's ever been.
The members of the National Council don't want to work together with the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change. And those who are fighting against the regular military every day have lost all faith in the opposition in exile who's mostly seeking diplomatic recognition by the foreign powers, but doesn't have any influence in Syria itself.
The NCC unites representatives of the Left who mostly live in Syria. They want an end to Assad's rule but they believe this could be achieved through dialogue with the regime, and without foreign intervention. They're probably what comes to mind whenever we say "The Syrians have clearly stated they do not want foreign intervention". It's only partly true, because we're speaking of a group of Syrians, not "THE" Syrians. And that position is exactly why this group is so isolated from the public opinion in their country. This position is becoming ever more unpopular.
On the other hand, the National Council which was founded in Istanbul last year, is against any dialogue. It unites people from various public and professional groups, intellectuals and also Islamists. It also includes the largest Kurdish party and a couple of Christian parties. Most members live in exile but at least formally it includes activists from the local coordination committees who organize the peaceful protests around Syria.
Unfortunately the situation is a classic "free-for-all". The National Council wants a modern, secularist and democratic state, while its critics are saying its agenda is too abstract and theoretical. What's more, some people in Syria are questioning the leader duet of the Council, Burhan Ghalioun and Basma Gadhmani and put them at the save level as Bashar Assad and his wife Asma. There were slogans on the protests like: "Neither Bashar and Asma, nor Burhan and Basma!" Many observers are saying that the National Council has passed the zenith of its influence and it'll be losing relevance with time. And the fact that the Kurdish community was not invited at the talks in Tunisia is not helping things any.
Seems like the leaders who'll possibly take over from Assad would most probably be from among the local coordination committees and the Free Syrian Army. The two groups are carrying most of the weight of the decentralized fight against the regime, they have the same goal but they pursue it in two very different ways - the former pursues peaceful means while the latter does it with arms. They're not connected in terms of organization, but the Committees tacitly support the deserters from the military.
There are local coordination committees in every province and every larger town. Their members are often students but there's a big diversity in that group - from businessmen to unemployed folks. They're not united by a common ideology but simply by the goal to remove Assad. The Committees never convene in a physical form, instead they keep connection through the social networks, via cellphones and other modern communication technologies. They organize demonstrations, collect data and shoot videos and publish them on the Internet.
And the military? The opposition is split on the question if the Free Syrian Army which consists of military deserters should be supported with direct arms supplies and financial aid for buying guns. The Free Army claims it has 40,000 fighters. They don't report to any central command HQ, instead they fight autonomously in every town against the regular military that's much more numerous and better equipped.
Still, the fighters are gradually trying to build some structure. A few days ago a military HQ was founded in Damascus under the command of Khalid Hammoud. New military councils are expected to be created in the other provinces. They'll coordinate the military actions of the Free Syrian Army, the arms purchases and the distribution of supplies. And this emerging organization and the aura of the active fighters for freedom will probably allow them to emerge as the dominant political factor, if/when Assad falls.
Which leads me to the following thought: 1) Islamists already being influential + 2) the military rising on the scene + 3) the liberal/democratic peaceful opposition living in exile and lacking popular support => does it remind you of another recent Middle Eastern revolution?
In Tunisia the Syrian National Council couldn't come up as a united body representing the opposition forces. And how could it? Most of its members have an air of selfishness about themselves that's so dense it borders on narcissism. They're stuck in hopeless bickering, and they've eventually let themselves get dominated by the Islamists. Meanwhile, until now they haven't welcomed even one Alawite, although this could've been such a simple and yet powerfully symbolic gesture of unity and reconciliation. All that matters is that the hated Assad clique is coming from that sect, plus many of the top guys in the state security forces. So that's a sufficient reason to completely marginalize an entire segment of the Syrian society. And that's just one example.
In Tunisia the National Council requested arms for the rebels, but the "friends of Syria" are still hesitating, and for a reason. A humanitarian corridor, a buffer zone, a no-fly zone - all these ideas contain a serious potential for escalation, and that scares the West.
What's worse, the international inaction also looks like a bad scenario. Those guys who are besieged in Homs won't be helped through US or German calls for Assad to step down. They're now pretty much on their own, alone with their troubles and forced to rely on their own powers alone. Unlike the rebels in Libya.
Even those among Assad's opponents who for a while in the beginning of the rebellion could still be won through initiatives such as that too-little-too-late constitutional referendum, have now become radicalized too. Sunni jihadists are jumping over from Iraq and finding fertile soil for their activities. They're offering assistance to those to whom help won't come from anywhere else. And they're gaining positions.
The bad news for the peace-loving democrats is that diplomacy hasn't brought any results either. The special UN envoy Kofi Annan will have to do a miracle if he wants to at least convince the warring sides to put the guns down for a while and sit at the table. For Assad's regime it's all become a matter of physical survival now. And the rebels know this applies to them too. The weapons are getting bigger, the casualties heavier, the hatred deeper. And we're still just in the beginning of all this.
The problems are mostly within the opposition itself. There are various groups who don't even want to sit in the same room and talk to each other, let along bringing their efforts in a united front against the regime. Much like the international community, the population is confused about who they should support. The division is very deep.
The weakness of the Syrian opposition comes from 5 decades of heavy-fisted dictatorship. For the last half a century no political debate was possible in Syria, and many smart people have fled abroad. The rebellion has lasted for more than a year now and the opposition is still as split and anaemic as it's ever been.
The members of the National Council don't want to work together with the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change. And those who are fighting against the regular military every day have lost all faith in the opposition in exile who's mostly seeking diplomatic recognition by the foreign powers, but doesn't have any influence in Syria itself.
The NCC unites representatives of the Left who mostly live in Syria. They want an end to Assad's rule but they believe this could be achieved through dialogue with the regime, and without foreign intervention. They're probably what comes to mind whenever we say "The Syrians have clearly stated they do not want foreign intervention". It's only partly true, because we're speaking of a group of Syrians, not "THE" Syrians. And that position is exactly why this group is so isolated from the public opinion in their country. This position is becoming ever more unpopular.
On the other hand, the National Council which was founded in Istanbul last year, is against any dialogue. It unites people from various public and professional groups, intellectuals and also Islamists. It also includes the largest Kurdish party and a couple of Christian parties. Most members live in exile but at least formally it includes activists from the local coordination committees who organize the peaceful protests around Syria.
Unfortunately the situation is a classic "free-for-all". The National Council wants a modern, secularist and democratic state, while its critics are saying its agenda is too abstract and theoretical. What's more, some people in Syria are questioning the leader duet of the Council, Burhan Ghalioun and Basma Gadhmani and put them at the save level as Bashar Assad and his wife Asma. There were slogans on the protests like: "Neither Bashar and Asma, nor Burhan and Basma!" Many observers are saying that the National Council has passed the zenith of its influence and it'll be losing relevance with time. And the fact that the Kurdish community was not invited at the talks in Tunisia is not helping things any.
Seems like the leaders who'll possibly take over from Assad would most probably be from among the local coordination committees and the Free Syrian Army. The two groups are carrying most of the weight of the decentralized fight against the regime, they have the same goal but they pursue it in two very different ways - the former pursues peaceful means while the latter does it with arms. They're not connected in terms of organization, but the Committees tacitly support the deserters from the military.
There are local coordination committees in every province and every larger town. Their members are often students but there's a big diversity in that group - from businessmen to unemployed folks. They're not united by a common ideology but simply by the goal to remove Assad. The Committees never convene in a physical form, instead they keep connection through the social networks, via cellphones and other modern communication technologies. They organize demonstrations, collect data and shoot videos and publish them on the Internet.
And the military? The opposition is split on the question if the Free Syrian Army which consists of military deserters should be supported with direct arms supplies and financial aid for buying guns. The Free Army claims it has 40,000 fighters. They don't report to any central command HQ, instead they fight autonomously in every town against the regular military that's much more numerous and better equipped.
Still, the fighters are gradually trying to build some structure. A few days ago a military HQ was founded in Damascus under the command of Khalid Hammoud. New military councils are expected to be created in the other provinces. They'll coordinate the military actions of the Free Syrian Army, the arms purchases and the distribution of supplies. And this emerging organization and the aura of the active fighters for freedom will probably allow them to emerge as the dominant political factor, if/when Assad falls.
Which leads me to the following thought: 1) Islamists already being influential + 2) the military rising on the scene + 3) the liberal/democratic peaceful opposition living in exile and lacking popular support => does it remind you of another recent Middle Eastern revolution?
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/12 20:10 (UTC)News are spreading of shoot-outs across the Turkish/Syrian border as Syrian refugees were trying to flee into Turkey. Unless a fast solution is found for this situation, the fire could well spread across borders and into neighboring countries, including Lebanon. And unfortunately I don't see a fast solution coming any time soon. In any case, the most drastic solution could turn out to be the worst, namely: the military one. Although the West still looks too hesitant to consider that option, particularly in comparison with Libya. But that might change.
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/12 20:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 17:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 08:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 11:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 11:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 12:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 12:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 12:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 17:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/4/12 08:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 12:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 23:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 14:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 12:49 (UTC)One thing about Libya is that the rebels organized themselves fairly rapidly. It was superficial and only skin deep, but it's a lot easier to talk about assisting people when you have only one organization to assist. Syria is much more of a jungle, and for that reason nobody wants to try and sort it out.
Also, I think people are playing games with the Turks, and the Turks are sitting on their cards.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/12 17:00 (UTC)