Milestones in Syrian History - The Third Syria

The forty years of Baath rule in Syria are, I think, a curious attempt to rule a country based on a narrow view of humanity. That view, that all people are selfish, scheming and untrustworthy, seemed, for a long time, to be justified. Today that view is being toppled by a resurgence of public spirit that is refusing to be cowed by bullets, sticks and knives. From the Syrian coast to the Syrian desert, the Syrian people in all their colours and backgrounds appear to have rejected the Baathist narrative and are now, without any political ideology, attempting to topple its edifice. I don't know if they will be successful, but they are refusing to be crushed.

To say that it is the "Baath" ideology that rules Syria today is to be unfair, however, since the Baath that has ruled Syria since 1969 is not the same as the Baath that took power in 1963. Adam Curtis wrote an article called, "The Baby and the Baath Water" which highlights the modern history of Syria and its struggles against conspiracies and internal coups. What surprised me was his comment that Michel Aflaq had, through the Baath party, tried to recreate an Arab society which, he believed, to have degenerated into a state of "living death", the Baath, or "resurgence", was an attempt to meld ideas of socialism, the French revolution, and Arab nationalism, into a single spark that would regenerate the entire Arab nation. You can see Curtis' documentary and blog post here. It is very good.

Since 1970, a new Syria was shaped, not along the old ideological and radical socialist lines of the previous Baath party, but along new, more pragmatic lines as directed by Hafez Al Assad. One commentator recently stated that the old Assad continued to rule Syria from the grave, such was his influence, and in a way that is very true. Whilst the Syrian uprising of the past six months has removed almost all obvious traces of Assad senior, it was very difficult up until recently to miss his ever present stare as he looked down upon all the citizens of his dominion. Assad senior masterminded Syria's involvement in Lebanon, its geopolitical position viz. the United States, through his alliance with Iran, and his strengthening of Syria's political position within the region, and especially with regards to Syria's Arab neighbours.

Today, however, I want to look at the effect of his rule domestically, something that is not often commented upon, but the results of which we must deal with out of necessity now that the Syrian republic appears on the verge of tearing itself apart. How did things get so badly out of control, and where will Syria go from here? I think the story begins with the way that Assad joined a five man secret committee which was formed within the Baath party. That in itself was the biggest indication of a tendency amongst those men that political leadership through the traditional channels of government had failed, and that what was needed was a much more resolute, and consistent rule that could be wielded through such a committee using secrecy and cloak and dagger methods. Whilst the Baath itself continued to struggle against its traditional enemies, be they communists, Nasserists or Islamists, the Baath was experiencing a power struggle within itself. It was this power struggle within an already powerful party and influential party that would start the process of transforming Syria. Assad's elimination of all the members of this secret committee, completed by 1969, also coincided with the total domination by the Baath party of Syria political life.

It was then that Assad began consolidating his grip, but this would not be immediately apparent. Whilst he quickly took the steps needed to give Syria a new constitution and to crush dissent, it wasn't until the struggle with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, and the Hama massacre, that it became apparent to all how powerful Assad had become. Up until the eighties, a somewhat booming economy, affluent middle class of sorts, and a small measure of remaining political freedoms which had not been encroached upon yet, provided the Syrian population with an illusory sense of stability and some prosperity. Assad was seen as having stabilised the country after a period of coups and counter-coups. The implementation of heavy handed security services and repression, as well as the effects of international sanctions and the war effort in Lebanon, destroyed this illusion and a relatively affluent Syrian middle class woke up one morning and realised that their country was no longer their own. But this does not mean that Syrian civil society gave up without a fight. There were widespread strikes, protests and denunciations against what was happening in the country, but, and this is where credit can be given to Assad senior, his Machiavellian approach to politics which had given him so much political capital abroad was now of great use to him domestically.

Co-opting, or convincing senior business figures in the country to hedge their bets on the stability he could offer, the first pillar of Syrian society to come crashing down was that of the merchants. A nationwide series of strikes almost destroyed his hold on power, were it not for the influence of the dean of the Syrian merchant class, Badr al Din al Shallah, whose son is still revered by the regime figures and exerts a lot of influence over the directing of the Syrian economy, it is said. Then it was the turn of the unions, most importantly the lawyer, engineering, and doctor's unions. These unions were, in a "crystal night" scenario, decapitated by the overnight arrest or exile of its leadership, their complete dissolution, and the creation of unions that were completely servile to the Baath party. It is these, non-functional unions which pepper Syria's landscape today, and they are in no way related to the original unions which used to take firm positions regarding political or economic matters that related to the nation's interests. The Syrian media was also completely co-opted, and today there are no independent and openly functioning news agencies that Syrians can tune into. Assad's party had completely and entirely taken over Syrian society.

On another level, I don't believe that Assad initially intended to adopt a sectarian approach to governing Syria. Though he himself was an Alawite, his pragmatism and shrewd political sense meant it was necessary for him to populate key positions of power with only those people he could trust. The fact that they happened to be Alawite was incidental, but his struggle with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood accentuated the sectarian divisions he now needed to manipulate in order to hold power. Where it came to ensuring the loyalty of those he trusted, he did so by transforming Syria into a rent-based economy where favour and industry was bestowed to his various captains. His wife's family were given sectors of industry to manage and control, his brother the same, and various government officials were allowed to wet their beaks. In essence, he institutionalised corruption too in order to maintain the loyalty of those around him, who depended on his rule to keep their welfare and income coming in. Of course, should any of them step out of line, then their corruption can be used against them. One needs only remember the 'suicide' of the unfortunate Mahmoud al Zubi, Syria's longest serving Prime Minister and hailing from the same Daraa that sparked the Syrian uprising in 2011. Zubi's great crime was not that he was corrupt, but that he became too corrupt, and that he knew about the corruption of others. Of course the fleeing of Syria's former vice president Abdul Halim Khaddam was also portrayed by the regime as the elimination of 'corruption' in the Baath party. The popular joke in Syria at the time was that he too wished to commit suicide, but the regime didn't find him. Of course Khaddam was also immersed in the corruption up to his eyeballs, but his great crime was to become a threat to the legacy of Assad and to scheme for power himself. Both these examples show that corruption became, for realpolitik, institutionalised in Syria in a way that had never before been experienced or seen, not, perhaps, since the days of the dying Ottoman empire.

The 2011 Syrian uprising, so far as has become clear, is an uprising not for or against ideologies, and not for any geopolitical position that the country was adopting, but for the simplest of grievances. It was against corruption and against repression, the two pillars that have maintained Assad's family in power since he took over, and that he erected in order to ensure he stayed in power. It is therefore around these twin pillars that the Assad regime today is focusing all its defences. Economically the pillars are being targeted by foreign countries that are anxious to put pressure on the regime for geopolitical reasons, domestically, the Syrian people are trying to tear the repression down. The removal of either of these pillars would make the grip of the Assad regime on the country untenable. Whether the people will succeed is another matter entirely, but one thing is clear, with time and effort everything is possible. Assad realised this principle almost forty years ago, but will the Syrian people be able to adopt it today? After six months of constant protesting, it looks like they have.

.

News Roundup for Syria

It is quite interesting that the two remaining revolutions that have either not been crushed (as in Bahrain) or succeeded (as in Libya, Tunisia and, perhaps, Egypt) are now Yemen and Syria. Religious types will be quite excited with the similarities to the Muslim hadith where the Prophet blessed Sham (Syria) and Yemen. This Friday is the "Friday of [Our] Sham and Yemen". Coincidentally, it seems that Anwar al Awlaki, the alleged al Qaeda mastermind who had been hiding in Yemen, was killed. I think his role has been overinflated and he isn't as important as people make him out to be, but if the Americans want him dead then I suppose that's just bad luck for him.

Reactions from the United States regarding the pelting of the US ambassador to Syria recently:

“This inexcusable assault is clearly part of ongoing campaign of intimidation aimed at diplomats ... who are raising questions about what is going on inside Syria. It reflects an intolerance on the part of the regime and its supporters.” — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, after Syria regime supporters pelted the U.S. ambassador to Syria with tomatoes and eggs.

The British and American diplomats are naturally quite pleased with the instability that is happening in Syria, but I wouldn't confuse their 'concern' with the 'West' actually fomenting the Syrian uprising, which has now become a revolution and could possibly turn into a civil war. Some confused leftists and activists not withstanding, it seems quite clear by now that both the United States and Iran are not that keen on Assad losing his power. It would be quite terrible for both of them to have a vacuum that will upset the power balance in the region.

From the Rastan, the Huffington Post reports, "Syria: Seven Soldiers Killed in Rastan". I think that's an extremely conservative estimate. Some rumours that have circulated say that almost four hundred Syrian (Assad loyalist) soldiers have been killed so far in the fiercest fighting seen since the uprising began. al Rastan is traditionally where many Syrian soldiers from the rank and file come from, and it is a town with a strong military tradition. CNN reports that almost forty nine people were killed in Syria on Wednesday and Thursday.

An interesting piece on the (pro-Saudi) al Arabiyah website by Amir Taheri. The author is trying to draw parallels between Iran and Syria, arguing that the regimes in both countries now rely almost entirely on the military for their power and legitimacy. The evidence he gives is quite flimsy, and if anything I think Syria is probably what Iran *might* be if its institutions are further eroded. I don't think even the worst days of the Green Revolution can be compared with the brutality we are seeing in Syria. In my opinion, and my knowledge of Iranian internal affairs is limited, I think Iran at least has the semblance of a parliamentary and electoral system, and there is a more developed and active civil society that is struggling with the regime through the courts and government institutions. In Syria every single government, judicial and political or non-governmental institution has been taken under the Baath (and hence the Assad family's) fold. The savagery we are seeing is, I think, partly due to the shock of the regime that people are actually daring to question its supremacy in all aspects of governance and society.

"Fox News" is reporting that the U.N. human rights inquiry is demanding access to Syria. Fat chance in my opinion. Even if access is granted it will not be open.

The BBC's Panorama recently had a programme about Syria, it is quite shocking and the footage is very raw and emotional. Here it is:

From Turkey (Arabic link), there are rumbles that the Turkish government will retaliate if the Syrian regime begins a boycott of Turkish goods.

From Pulse Media, Robin Yassin Kassab argues that the Syrian regime's allegations of armed groups trying to start a civil war have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think he's right. .

The situation in Rastan is critical right now. From this point on, we will see more armed clashes with the regime's security forces. This doesn't mean that there will be a civil war, or that 'armed groups' were behind the unrest in Syria, it means that people are now frustrated by the lack of progress in the peaceful protest path and are now picking up machine guns. This is going to get uglier now.

The rest of Syria is also alight with protests, according to al Jazeera Arabic.

.

Fascinating Insight From Nir Rosen

In his second article about his time in Syria, Nir Rosen gives some very interesting information into the nascent armed groups that are starting to challenge the regime's security services. The picture forming is that there is a capable and effective group of officers and defected soldiers that are starting to offer a slight defence against the killing. How far they can go in terms of toppling the regime is far from clear.

He points out that fighters from Homs may have captured a Syrian army colonel who is a distant relation of the president. This might explain the ferocity of the campaign that is taking place in that area at the moment. Also of interest is that Hussein Harmoush might not have been in Turkey when he was captured, and Harmoush is described as a difficult person who alienated many people. Well worth a read and I look forward to the next article.

.

A very disturbing window into what is happening in Syria every day. I was quite shocked when I heard about this story.

.

The Syrian News Update

In case you missed it, this was the very good show on al Jazeera where Muhammad al Abdullah faced the pro-regime Abdel Massih al Shami. And yes, Abdel Massih did fall off his chair at the end of the show. Very amusing forty eight minutes.

"Syria forced storm refuge for army defectors"

Rastan is the traditional "army town" for Syria, and Mustafa Tlass himself hails from there. It has also, since the start of the protests, become a centre for army defectors and has already been heavily assaulted before. So it is is interesting that the regime is once again going back there to crush what it thinks is a nuclear for army defectors. My bet is that anybody who is resisting the Syrian security forces has already melted away before the army surrounded it, and will probably return, or re-materialise elsewhere once the onslaught continues. At least that's what I think somebody smart would do.

Haaretz reporting (and probably with some irony) that Syria's UN envoy accuses Israel of committing 'state terrorism' against the Palestinians. A pot, calling a kettle black, calling a pot black, calling a kettle black. You get the picture.

Syrian oil, again, in the headlines as the Washington Post reports Syria wants oil companies to cut back production. In short, nobody is buying the stuff, and they are running out of places to store it. Oh dear...

The US is warning Najib Mikati, Lebanon's pro-Hezbullah prime minister, about any links with the Syrian regime - according to the "Daily Star". Mikati has his fingers in many pies, especially in West Africa and the Cote D'Ivoire, so the Americans seem to know who to point their warnings to. A man like him would do best to be very careful and tread carefully.

Videos on the Guardian's Live Blog show students being arrested by the Syrian regime security forces. Notice that children are now speaking freely and cursing Assad. Something unthinkable six months ago. Something tells me that when children aren't afraid of you any more then the game is starting to look up.

The British Ambassador to Syria has started blogging about what is happening there. Well, to be precise he has decided to start blogging. He still hasn't said anything substantial yet. So let's see what he comes up with.

"Assad Rejects Accusations of Seeking Minority Alliances" according to the "Daily Star":

Syrian President Bashar Assad rejected accusations Monday that he was seeking an alliance of minorities against Syria’s Sunni majority during a meeting with a Lebanese Christian delegation.

Actually that might be precisely what he's aiming to do. Forty years of sectarian Baath party rule can be thanked for this type of language.

In other news, four years after his assassination, Syria miraculously exposes the "spy" that Israel used to kill Imad Mughniyeh. Of course his family emphatically rejected this accusation (see my earlier post) but who cares about such a petty thing like evidence or the truth in today's Syrian media? Better late than never I suppose...

And finally, as has becoming depressingly usual, "Civil War Likely in Syria?" is the headline for a post by UPI:

"We are not in a civil war yet but we will certainly be heading there unless something is done," he said. "I would have rated this scenario very low in March. Today, it is quite a possibility."

.

Syria News Roundup

Interesting Panorama article about Syria on the BBC website: "Syria: 'Our Weapon is the Camera" in bloody revolution"


Note near the end of the article those interviewed are starting to believe increasingly in an armed response to the regime's violent crackdown. I think there have already been armed responses to the Syrian regime, but nothing widespread and intensive enough to be called an 'armed resistance' yet. I think this is a question of, "how many hairs make a beard?".

Turkey's Erdogan blasts Syria, Israel
I was surprised to hear Erdogan's very strong tone against the Syria's Bashar al Assad recently, mainly because it was after a long period of Turkish silence. This came close to the announcement that Turkey had seized a Syrian flagged vessel carrying arms (which is hardly going to hurt the regime). Apart from talk, it isn't clear to me how Turkey can influence Damascus to stop using violence against the people.

Turkish economic sanctions are looking set to take effect in October

This was interesting though, and highlights the Turkish ambiguity towards events in Syria:

Addressing another major international project, carrying Egyptian natural gas to Turkey through Jordan and Syria, sources said the government’s sanctions would not affect international plans unless the Syrian government wants to stop them.

Patriarch's remarks draw regional response as controversy persists
Storm in a teacup as a Lebanese Christian leader, Beshara Rai, says that the position of Christians in Syria will be imperilled if Assad's regime falls.

How to Protect Syria's Foreign Reserves

The ban on importing goods with a tariff of more than 5% reviewed in this article. Hints that the business community "is no longer with the regime" but likely to stay on the sidelines. Personally, my view is that the regime is reshuffling its cards to protect itself from the sanctions. Naturally they are feeling the pinch after over six months of protests, but it's still not clear how hard their pockets have been hit. But this ban is a staying action, meant to buy time - and he who needs to buy time can also run out of time...

Civil War becoming a real danger in Syria
Nothing more to say, the title of this article says it all really...

Gaddafi Daughter Says Father is Well
Notice it is on the Rai TV which is based in Syria. Somebody has an interest in helping the Libyan unrest continue for as long as possible...No points for guessing who.

Voice of America reports: "Russian FM: Important Not to Instigate Confrontation in Syria"
The geopolitical clash of the titans continues...

"Syrian regime protested at Arab culture festival"
Terribly worded title for an article with atrocious spelling mistakes. Not surprisingly, pro-regime protesters continue their attempt to intimidate anti-regime protesters:

“Some people that clearly work for the other side are taking pictures of people here, so that they can take it, send it back home for some kind of identification,” Al-smadi said.

I've seen the same thing happen in anti-regime protests in Syria, but these have stopped happening ever since the Times reported about the possible intimidation of Syrian anti-regime protesters by figures in the Syrian embassy and those associated with them. .

The Syrian News Roundup

"Syria says Ambush Kills 5 Security Personnel" - right...and it is true because SANA says so. If you don't believe SANA then you're probably not a patriot, and not really Syrian, and probably working for the Mossad and the CIA and al Qaeda.

"ONGC mulls bringing its Syrian oil to India" according to sources speaking to Reuters


Well, India is often cited as a 'friend' by the Syrian regime so this move does make sense. As one company man there says, it's a "win-win" situation. Of course, India is farther from Syria than Europe is, and that will make the oil a little bit more expensive for that company. It's not a permanent solution, and I'm pretty sure ONGC will probably wrangle a good deal from themselves since they have the Syrian suppliers by the balls. So, overall, I doubt how effective this move will be for the Syrian regime in the long run. It will also be interesting to see how the unilateral European and American sanctions might start to creep onto those Indian companies doing business with the regime. There is no way this would happen yet, but if things begin to escalate, then it just might be an option. Let's see. Of course this does show that oil revenues are very important to the Syrian regime, and the loss of the European markets required an almost immediate replacement to keep those revenues coming in.

David Cameron recently took a tougher line in his first UN speech. Mentioning Syria he said, "Above all, on Syria, it is time for the Members of the Security Council to act". Of course Mr Cameron didn't have a problem with tyrants when he was visiting Putin a few days ago. Nor did Blair have a problem with Gaddafi when he met him in a tent in the Libyan desert and sorted out a tasty deal for BP. Yes, Libyan oil was available for the West before the Libyan revolution, and yes, Western leaders are hypocritical, but that's the nature of the beast. If the Syrians want to get rid of Assad, they will have to capitalise on whatever political currency they can get.

A clip on al Jazeera English showing the family of the "Israeli spy" that Syrian television paraded on air. Apparently he was instrumental in the killing of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbullah's man, a few years back. I think the Syrian claims are nonsense on stilts, as are all their on-air "confessions". Somebody should tell them that these things went out of fashion around the time that Stalin died.

And next we have the often forgotten victims of these revolutions: 21 Filipinos are arriving back home from Syria. The Filipino Department of Foreign Affairs is urging its citizens to leave Syria (apparently there are 17,000 Filipino nationals there). I guess Madam is going to have to do her own dishes from now on, which should go down a treat.

The WSJ has a silly article about how the Maronite Church in Lebanon has "long supported independence from dictatorship and military occupation". There is a political spectrum in Lebanon that is licking its lips with relish at the problems happening in Syria, and I find their mock indignation at the plight of the Syrian people quite tasteless. I don't recall them expressing such horror at the treatment of Syrian workers in Lebanon.

Some are beginning to say that the Syrian demonstrations are losing steam, and that this might drive the protesters to adopt more violent means.

”Idlibi, who forcefully argued for the non-violent nature of the protest movement, nevertheless added that the “delay of the international community in clearly supporting the Syrian revolution could lead to a deviation from the peaceful line.”

I liked this paragraph about Syria in an article from the Washington Times website:

The more I read about Syria and its history, the more I find it to be the very embodiment of the Arab peoples and their grisly, twisted fate. Not only is its ethnic makeup a microcosm of the Middle East, a jumble of ethnicities and religions; not only is it ruled, like so many other Arab states, by a ruthless minority, and along tribal lines; but, above all, Syria exemplifies the historic dispossession of the Arab peoples. The French occupiers carved the map of ancient Syria as they saw fit, slicing a piece off to Turkey and cutting off a big chunk to form Lebanon, an illegitimate entity in Syrian eyes. The loss of the Golan Heights to Israel is only the most recent happening in a never-ending historical drama in which, whatever happens, eventually, Syria gets royally screwed.

Benjamin Ra then concludes that the demise of the Syrian regime to be a great loss to both the region and to the United States. Apparently he's worried about instability there spilling over into Iraq or something like that. Somebody should tell him why Iraq was so unstable following the Iraqi invasion in the first place...

The "New York Jewish Week" has a predictably non-sympathetic view on Syrian-Iranian relations. Nothing new here. Just more spiel about how terrifying an Iranian nuclear programme would be and blah, blah, blah. Oy vey! .

مسرب اللاذقية قوات الاسد القمعية تعتقل المدنيين وتعذبهم وتهينهم

The Syrian army, seen here preserving the honour of Syrian people everywhere. Raise your head up high, this is the brave army that is defending us from imperialism, colonialism and Zionism. If it weren't for them, Syrians would be stamped under the boots of some American soldier.

.

شريط فيديو للجيش السوري الذي يقوم باحتجاز المتظاهرين

Some Syrian citizens, beating themselves with a soldier's foot so that they can blame the Syrian government.

.

Syria News Roundup

The BBC asks, "Should the international community intervene in Syria?". Two guys respond, one pro- and the other anti- the Syrian regime. Dany Abdullah has a naive pro-Western slant to his argument that I'm not comfortable with, but he gives a good answer regarding the alternative to Bashar al Assad:

"The alternative to Assad's regime is available. Syria has 24 million people and many of them are educated and qualified to become the alternative.

The pro-regime guy gives his name as only "Bashar" which probably says it all. He repeats the usual line of armed salafist groups destabilising Syria and calls those asking for foreign protection "simpletons".

NYT: Iraq Calls for Change of Syrian Regime

This is an interesting change of position that has started emerging over the past few weeks. For Iraq, read Iran, as it is the Islamic Republic which runs the show in spite of whatever is left of the United States military in the country. It's unusual because Iraq as it is today would probably prefer the Syrian regime to remain in power. This change might be happening because Tehran knows that it has bet on a losing greyhound. The higher the body-count, which puts to shame anything the Basij might have done during the Green Revolution, is getting very embarrassing for Assad's allies. This might put into context the next bit of news that caught my attention:

"Russia is ready to back sanction-less resolution on Syria" according to Lavrov (reported by the "Voice of Russia")

I don't know what effect a resolution without sanctions would do to weaken the Syrian regime, but it would still be a major political coup against Assad. If Lavrov really has announced this position then we are seeing chinks appear in the international front that has given Assad cover and legitimacy. Whatever the regime's spin-doctors can come up with, they will find it difficult to defend a regime that insists Israel should adhere to UN security resolutions whilst ignoring resolutions that are telling it to stop killing Syrian protesters. Alone, it is as useful as a chocolate teapot, but it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Syria's Economy to Shrink by 2% Says IMF - Bloomberg

Here we go, the juicy bit. The headline says it all, but what you only spot when you read the article later is that Syria's economy is expected to only grow by 1% in 2011. Interestingly, Bloomberg report the casualty count to be 3,600 people (killed by security forces) since the start of the protests. Now the Assad's are originally peasants, so the most important thing for them and their followers will be on how to maintain their wealth. If the Syrian economy is on the verge of free-falling and existing sanctions start to take a bite, they might not be able to keep the wheels of the state rolling. Dark days lie ahead for average Syrians.

IRIN Middle East reports that the death toll in Syria maybe as high as 5,000

The report is based on claims by Avaaz and Insan.

Reuters: The Arab League is looking to suspend the membership of Syria and Yemen

This is a good move. It shows that the Arabs might give up on the "slowly-slowly" approach that they adopted  with Saleh and Assad. The problem isn't really the death toll that is slowly rising, most Arab governments don't care about such things. The real problem is that the longer such instability continues, the likelier it will affect the GCC states themselves. So where containment and a quiet 'resolution' of these problems might have been on the cards previously, the tipping point has probably been reached now where something has to be done about these two dictators. I imagine we'll be seeing a flurry of activity regarding Yemen and Syria too, with a number of statements being released by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey soon. Watch this space.

Finally, Bahrain and Syria look set to clash tonight - on the football field

I expect the Syrian team to completely clobber the Bahrainis. .

"This is Landis, Signing Out...For Now..."

There is a real mud-fight taking place in Syriacomment and in which I don't intend to participate. It seems that Joshua Landis is handing over the day-to-day administration of the site to a person called Ehsani and to Camille Otrakji. I've read Ehsani's articles before and he is a sobre and mature analyst of Syrian economic issues as far as I can tell, but unfortunately I cannot say the same for Otrakji. One reader there, Qunfuz, called him a member of the intellectual-Shabeeha, and the label is, sadly, quite true. I've lost a lot of respect for this man [Otrakji] since the start of the Syrian revolution, and I don't think he has any credibility as a moderator for Syria Comment, let alone the fact that the site itself, through Landis, is quite biased towards the Syrian regime's narrative. His position playing the 'Devil's advocate' for the Syrian regime is quite revolting, even for somebody like myself, and I can't say I have much sympathy for him when he is mauled viciously by his critics. Live by the sword and all that...

Hopefully we'll be seeing less of Landis' selective quoting from 'credible sources' and American housewives in Latakia who might have seen somebody that looked like a salafist hanging up laundry on the neighbour's roof. The battle for hearts and minds continues...

[End of Maysaloon Commentary]

.

Nothing worth commenting on today, apart from the fact that Bashar al Assad has killed more Syrians so that he and his family can stay in power. There is not one ruler in history that has challenged his own people, and lived to tell the tale. I expect his fall from grace to be painful and undignified.

.

Shaaban in Moscow - Why?

I find myself wondering why Bouthaina Shaaban was in Moscow recently. She is a "political and media adviser" to Bashar al Assad, so why send her, of all people, abroad? Walid al Mouallem is Syria's foreign minister, and it is strange that he isn't the one who went. A high level delegation is reported by al Jazeera to have arrived in Syria. Sending Shaaban to Moscow might be because she is trusted by Assad, and she might have been asked to convey a request or message. The Russians don't want foreign involvement (ie. the West) in Syria, so sending a high level delegation from Russia's parliament might be a way of opening channels with Syria's internal opposition through an external party. Behind the curtains, a Russian delegation could use any meetings with the internal opposition to act as a go-between, to find out where the sympathies of this opposition would lie, and also, perhaps, to warn the opposition. There might be an idea that the Russians are considered within the Syrian 'family' and that perhaps there is still hope that the whole affair can be wrapped up. I'm just speculating, but Shaaban's visit to Moscow has something behind it, and I imagine we will be finding out why in the days and months to come.

.

The Case of NATO and the Syrian Opposition

There is a silly article on the Guardian CiF calling for - and I'm not making this up - a "Turkish-Arab" force to oust the Assad's from power in Syria. Now why on earth would the Turks risk life and limb to help the Syrian people? Nobody would do something like that unless there is something in it for them. Furthermore, any victory won with the arms of another is no victory at all. This attitude is becoming much more prevalent amongst Syrian opposition figures: there is a lot of pussy-footing going on at the moment regarding foreign intervention in Syria. You either man up and ask for what you want, or you don't. Rightly or wrongly, this is no time for dithering and everybody needs to put their cards on the table.

.

The Assad Inside Us All...

If you think that what is happening in Syria is simply a struggle for democracy and human rights, then think again. The uprising in Syria is a battle for the soul of the country, and through that, for the soul of the entire Arab world. Whether your particular flavour is Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan or Yemeni, the schism in the Arab psyche is at risk of tearing this part of the world even farther apart - or healing those divisions. I'm a Syrian, but when I support the revolution I'm not just cursing some mysterious and spiteful 'Other' that has attacked my country, whatever the hell that concept means today (if ever it meant anything before), instead I feel that I am cursing that aspect of my personality, the aspect that is evil, that is a scoundrel, and that will spit on anything you think is holy. I don't think I necessarily want to get rid of that part of me, but I need to put it under control. Otherwise I will live like a beast, shunned by all men and civilised life.

I think the same applies to Syria as a nation today. The soldier that tears down a minaret, or presses his boot down on the neck of a man old enough to be his father, cursing him and asking him to call Bashar his "god", did not come from another country, nor was he given some pills or horrible medicine to make him an animal. He came from within us. We produced him, nurtured him and allowed him to become what he is today through our own silence. Complicity through silence...it is an interesting thought, but is that really it? I'll leave that to you to think about as you drink your coffee in the comfort of your own home. The people who have already answered that question don't have internet access and are too busy oppressing or being oppressed. They don't read blogs but rather they are making a history that we can then blog about. So again, who is this soldier, thug or paramilitary?

The answer is that he's a bastard, our bastard, and we will remember ourselves every time we gaze upon his face and see our features. He will have our eyebrows, our cheekbones or our laugh. We hate him because he is a bastard, and that very label has a sting that we equally hate and relish. His eyes reflect an evil glee at the suffering of others, and that glee is what we feel when we see our neighbours suffer. That evil we see in Bashar al Assad is the evil we all keep hidden deep inside us...if it frightens us, then that is good - it should. But should we try to eliminate this dark aspect of our natures? To tie it down? To live in godliness? I imagine that life would be so very dull if ever we were to kill that hidden Assad inside us. If we lose him, we might also loose that path to this state of godliness that we created and now seek so fervently. It is like living in a world where everybody is a virgin when they get married...

.

'Syria Protest in London' Woes

I don't like the way that some Syrians are using guilt and silly arguments to get other Syrians to go to the weekly protests at the embassy. In fact I find the language they are using quite insulting. There are many people who support the revolution, myself included, but this does not mean that standing in an empty square on a Saturday in front of the stupid Syrian Embassy will make a difference, or that it means anything. Those that are protesting each week seem to me to be doing so because there is nothing else for them to do, and also so that they can assuage their (misplaced) guilt at not being in Syria. I don't blame them, but I suggest they stop being silly and let everybody contribute in their own way. Of course that does not mean I would discourage anybody from going, quite the opposite, if you feel it is important to you then go right ahead.

This brings me to the other subject of those ridiculous 'opposition' leaders who show up to each protest wearing their suits and having deeply intellectual conversations behind the protesters. They are all 'doctors' (and insist on being called thus) and refer to themselves as 'intellectuals'. I have to admit that the novelty of watching these idiots has now worn off and I obtain no amusement in watching or listening to their arrogance. I must repeat my view again that Syria's opposition politicians and government are equally repulsive. The latter is murderous and stupid, whilst the former is just plain stupid. As we say in Syria, "a gun in the hand of a good person can cause injury" (السلاح بيد المليح يذبح). Of course there are good men and women of principle, and I don't wish to generalise. Regardless of these opportunists, I do support the creation of a Syrian National Council or anything else which can help remove Assad and stop the killing of Syrians. But God help anybody who thinks they can piggy-back on the revolution or rule Syria with a sense of entitlement - God help them from me, that is...

.

As strangely as it began, my paralysis is slowly beginning to disappear. I can almost feel the words returning to me; the thoughts begin to trickle into my mind. It feels as if my soul has returned.

.

It can be utterly terrifying, to be part of making history. You might ask yourself why it has to be you, and why not somebody else. You might curse your luck, or sink into a form of escape. Mostly, you hate yourself for having always chosen the path of righteousness, even if you know yourself, deep down, to be so beyond redemption and so far from justice that you couldn't find it if somebody gave you a map and painted a stripe on the ground all the way towards it. But you could never accept the wrong, the twisted, so you have to keep going. God knows what you'll find at the end of the path, but when it is done, you will know that it is the only path you could ever have trodden. If you seek courage, then you have already found it.

.

Thoughts on the Revolution

The fact that I offer my full moral support to the Syrian revolution doesn't in any way mean that I have changed my position with regards to the lousy elements of Lebanon's politics who were prepared to sell their country to France and the United States. I'm still utterly disappointed with Hezbullah and their leader, who have demonstrated that they are purely sectarian in their motivations regarding Syria (contrast that with their firm support of the now crushed Bahraini revolution). I don't want to return to a Syria which is run by Assad ever again. Either he goes, or I will never visit my homeland, it's that simple. This thought pains me, but I'm slowly reconciling myself with the fact that I might not see Damascus for years. Other times I get very angry; there are brave individuals within Syria who are risking everything whilst the most I can do is write condemnation after condemnation.So what I do is spend my time telling anybody who would care to listen why Assad is a criminal and why the Syrian revolution must succeed for Syria to become a country for all her people and not just for his family and their gangs.

On another note, I am thoroughly disappointed with the quality of some of Syria's opposition 'politicians' - at least the ones that I have seen in London. Many appear to me to be arrogant, rude and very, very stupid. When you talk to them, they seem to really believe that they understand politics or that they are 'statesmen'. In effect these political dinosaurs all have an inflated opinion of themselves. I think that they behave the way that they do simply because they don't respect average Syrians any more than Bashar al Assad. They see good-hearted Syrians who are protesting here as either useful idiots to be manipulated and benefited from, or just plain idiots. I shudder when I think what Syria would be like with these clowns running the show, probably the foreign intelligence services and diplomats will treat Syria like a servant colony. Yet at the same time, part of me hopes that they do. Even if the Syrian opposition does take control of Syria, and I think it likely, then at the very least people like me can point our fingers at those who are corrupt amongst them, and accuse or topple them, without risking our lives or the safety of our families and loved ones. In effect, there is at least hope if the regime goes, but whilst the Assad's rule Syria, there is no hope, no light, and no possibility of any change for the better. There is only darkness.

.

A Syrian Conundrum

Some people tell me they worry that the revolution in Syria is starting to slow down. I say not so. All it takes is for one to watch some of the new videos that are reaching us from inside Syria every day and a new revolution will start instantly. The pictures of Assad's gorillas torturing Syrian civilians or shooting donkeys is enough to inspire indignation and anger in any decent person. People should not worry that, after six months, Assad is still in power in Damascus. They should instead be amazed that after six months the Syrian people are still protesting and that the revolution is still alive; That is the amazing thing. The reality is that the Syrian people are not going anywhere, but Bashar is.

This brings me to the next question, can the protesters remain peaceful or will we start seeing an armed struggle taking place in Syria. I don't think a full scale civil war will erupt any time soon, but rather it will be gradual and slow. Mainly I think this is because the regime will massacre any armed group that tries to take and hold ground in Syria. The Syrian regime and the Syrian people are at loggerheads, and at least one side, Assad and his thugs, are prepared to grind the country to dust before surrendering power. The real question is whether or not the Syrian people who are revolting will be prepared to take themselves over, into, and right out of, this dark abyss. In times like this, the side that is prepared to pay whatever cost is necessary for victory, will win. If the protesters are not prepared to do this then they might as well go home and get slaughtered by Assad's thugs, one by one. But if they are prepared, and I suspect, after six months, that this is the case, then Syria will slowly begin to implode.

I was toying with an idea earlier today, and it is something that has been floating around amongst Syrian Twitter users recently, that Assad's regime might form an Alawite state on the Syrian coastline. It's a far-fetched idea, but it is not impossible. In my own opinion, I think Assad will not go anywhere unless Syrians with guns go after him and force him out of Damascus. After six months it is clear that this thug and his family have no interest in the lives of the Syrian people and will kill as many people as possible to crush the revolution. That is, of course, a frightening idea, but it does not mean that the Assad's are invincible...

Finally, there is something very suspicious about the effects of Ahmad al Arabi's visit to Syria. Turkey's position regarding Assad is becoming ambiguous, the international community has gone quiet, and news coverage of the revolution is slowly dwindling. Something doesn't seem right to me and I suspect we will see the results of that shortly.

.

The Sarkozy-Cameron visit to Tripoli was a victory visit, that is very clear. And why shouldn't it be...the strength of the West has, and always will be, based on the weakness of the Arab countries. Most importantly, the weakness of the tinpot dictators and tyrants that press their boots down on the chests of their own citizens is what keeps the entire Arab world in the gutter.

.

The Inner Workings of Syrian Spin-Doctors

We've all met, or heard form them. These are people who appear quite respectable, a bit 'Westernised', and usually seem to be quite reasonable. They express the views that would make them popular with Arabs that are concerned about justice in Palestine, and they empathise with people who criticised the dire situation of the Arab countries. In fact, the spin-doctors of Syria sometimes used to surprise people with their almost 'daring' broaching of topics and subjects that addressed issues in Syria. They encouraged people to speak out on issues that many Syrians were taught (often by force) to be taboo. One of the most interesting hallmarks of these spin-doctors, when they encouraged ex-pats to write or discuss issues relating with Syria, was that they always backed up their arguments with statements that seemed to legitimise the issue being mentioned, "Well, even the President said that the country has problems...", or, "The President himself is concerned about corruption..." and so on and so forth. It is as if these high-priests of the Assad regime are protecting themselves using the holy words of the president himself. They even grudgingly acknowledge, tut and shake their heads in a sham despair, when mention of Syria's barbaric security services arises. Of course, their view is that 'the bad old days' are over, and that they are martyrs, along with Bashar al Assad, carrying the slow burden of change in a bureaucratic and stale system. Somehow, their reasoning goes, if we all work together, then Syria will be a great place that we can all be proud of.

The problem, of course, is that this kind of talk was all before the Syrian regime began to show just how serious it was about reform. Over three thousand dead Syrians (on the most conservative estimates) can attest to how little things have changed in a country which has, for the past forty years, been firmly under the boot of a clan that comes from one of Syria's minorities. Today, these professional spin-doctors, that emerged seemingly innocuously about five years ago, have begun a full fledged propaganda campaign to spread disinformation and doubt about the events that are taking place in Syria. Some of them have clearly been trained in PR and media skills, and have, over the past few years, cultivated links with media, academia and intellectual circles in various countries in the West. They are also usually quite articulate and well-presented, and seem to have been given some special permission to be a bit less crude in the party propaganda that is usually rammed down the throats of the typical Syrian.

But these spin-doctors do not just operate on an open, media level. They also, as has happened so often during the past few years, confide 'knowingly' to their circle of unknowing acquaintances, that the Syrian regime really is the subject of a mass conspiracy. That their 'contacts' with those 'up top' have given them credible information about this conspiracy and that 'all will be revealed' if people have faith.

Strengthening the position of these (what can only be described as) professional liars, is the complete banning of any independent foreign media into the country. Of course, if anybody says this, then they will be quick to point out that the Russian and Chinese media have also been allowed to the country, and that even correspondents from CNN and the BBC were allowed to visit the country. What they do not mention is that Russia and China are staunch allies of the Syrian regime and themselves very worried about unrest spreading in their own countries. They also do not mention the constant presence of minders around the CNN and BBC journalists, or the fact that those journalists were allowed into the country in strictly limited time-frames and were not allowed to remain, nor move about the country freely.

Secondly, these professional liars will build on the narrative that the Assad regime is cultivating carefully. That the country is being overrun by armed gangs of Salafists who were trained by foreign powers. Of course any news channel which does not believe the Assad regime's version of events is dismissed as a tool of these foreign powers. The only credible source of information that these people will accept is the state owned, or state-aligned media groups (ironically themselves tools of the regime). Of course, there are also articles and stories from the Western media that can be allowed, but these are carefully selected for their ambiguity or for raising just enough reasonable doubt to assist in propagating the regime's narrative.

Thirdly, the professional liar enjoys stories of hardship and difficulty in Arab countries that have had some success in removing their dictators this year. In particular, the professional liar will cite the terrors of democracy that Iraq had to suffer. Of course, they fail to mention that Iraq's one million deaths since the American invasion were as much the fault of Iran and Syria as they were the United States. From 2005 until 2008, the Syrian and Iranian regime were embroiled in a cold war against the United States and her allies for their very survival. They won, but at the huge cost of a now almost permanently lobotomised Iraqi state.

Fourthly, they - and this might be because unlike other tools of the Syrian regime, they are only mildly more intelligent and require more flexibility - acknowledge some of the 'legitimate' grievances of the Syrian people that have, "oh so cruelly", been hijacked by these foreign conspiring powers. This is why they work themselves into a frenzy whenever the Syrian regime throws out more meaningless reforms, citing this as proof of the sincerity of Assad's regime, and the benevolence of his rule. Of course, they can revert back to their initial arguments of armed gangs roaming Syria if the absurdity of such reforms is pointed out. Naturally, they quote liberally from the speeches of Bashar al Assad to give what they say immunity in the eyes of the rabidly paranoid security services that are the attack dogs of the Syrian regime.

It is all wonderfully designed, and the beauty of their task is that it is based on a circular argument. The professional liar has all the answers, is slippery and smart, and will always find a way out. But a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated, can never be made true, even if some people come to believe it. The other thing these 'individuals' appear blissfully unaware of, is that lies can only thrive in the darkness, in the light, they wither away.

.

The Long Arms of the Syrian Regime

Hussein Harmoush, the officer that had famously defected from the Syrian army at the start of the Syrian revolt, appears to have been abducted from a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey and spirited back into Syria. This is a deeply upsetting incident, and a message from the Syrian regime that nowhere is safe for people who have been effective in strengthening the uprising. The video of his 'confession' shows a much thinner man, with a lot of stubble, saying that he received weapons and logistical support from Khaddam, the former Vice President of Syria who fell out with the Assad regime and is currently in exile in Paris. These confessions should probably be taken with a pinch of salt, firstly because any confession under torture is probably false, and secondly because the Syrian regime has a habit, a bit like Stalin's Soviet Union, or Khomeini's Iran, of parading those who have fallen foul of the regime publicly and airing such confessions without recognising the absurdity of such a spectacle. No reasonable person could believe such nonsense, then again, this regime isn't very reasonable, so how would it know what is believable or not?

I take pity on Harmoush, if he is even still alive. What he must be going through at the hands of Assad's [in]security services must be horrific. Moral of the story, don't get caught. .

دمشق رنكوس مسائيات ثورية في ثلاثاء الغضب من روسيا 13 9

Does Bashar really believe that he can defeat these people?

.

Milestones in Syrian History - The First Syria

In times of crisis I like to look far back, to the beginning, to see where the seeds of the present were planted. I know such a process can be tedious for some people, but in my experience I find this exercise can often yield surprising results and quite novel insights, for example: a look at America's CIA toppling of the Mossadegh government in Iran during the fifties leads almost directly to the rise of the ayatollah's in Iran; Nasser's anti-monarchical views led to terrible results in the Yemen, and also to the rise of a twenty-seven year old man called Moammar al Gaddafi to power in Libya. History is not just a stale list of events and dates that needs to be memorised, but the 'current affairs' of yesterday and a mirror into the future.

I have always been fascinated by this quirk of fate that distributes people across nations and races; I never chose my parents, nor did I choose the background that I was raised in, but it is a part of me nonetheless. As impartial as I can ever try to be, an integral part of my character is forever intertwined with this branch of life that we call a country, a tribe or a people. This does not mean we should confuse jingoism with a desire to appreciate and understand our backgrounds. What I believe is that the more we understand our past, the clearer the choices we must make become, for it is in understanding what has shaped our beliefs, fears and view of the world that we can make sense of what befalls us, and discover how we can learn from our mistakes as well as grow strong from our wisdom. With that in mind, I intend to take a series of short journeys into Syria's modern history at key junctions in this country's past. It is not going to be easy, not least because my sources will (to start) be extremely limited, but I expect my knowledge about each of these junctions in Syrian history to be supplemented in layers as I review and examine fresh material. I know there are plenty of people who have carried out in-depth analyses of Syrian economic, political and social development, but what I want to do is bring the topic to life. This is certainly not an exhaustive (and exhausting) academic study of Syrian history. If somebody reads this series and finds it interesting and thought-provoking then I would have, perhaps, achieved my goal.

The First Syria


The roots of modern Syria, like other countries in the region, lie in the great 'Arab Revolt' that took place during the First World War. At the time the British thought it would be a good idea to incite the Arabs, then under Ottoman rule, to revolt. Of course we cannot entirely blame (or thank) the British for sparking this revolt. The twentieth century saw the natural conclusion of nineteenth century nationalism and jingoism, and one can argue, as I will, that the 'Great War' was the final 'nationalist' struggle of that great era which began on the fields of Waterloo. It would not be until the Second World War that the greatest drive behind conflict would be ideology, and until that point the Arabs, like everybody else, were interested mainly in expressing a nationalism of their own - but usually under some form of Arab monarchism. By that time the decrepit and rotting Ottoman Empire could no longer rely on a relatively universalistic 'Islamic' appeal, and the Young Turk movement, of whom Mustafa Kemal Attaturk was a member, was trying to "Turkify" the empire's subjects with a Turkish nationalism.

Naturally the Arabs were not very pleased with this and, coupled with corruption and heavy handed repression - as well as that bane of all peoples, heavy taxation - the Arab masses were prepared to ignite in revolution at any moment. Of course we are not going to relate the events of the First World War - that has been done very well elsewhere - but this yearning for Arab nationalism led to the creation of the first Syrian Kingdom (under King Faisal) and it as Syrians that the soldiers of that country's newly formed army fought the French in Maysaloon. Of course, the Syrian army has never won a war in its entire history, but there is a plucky Syrian spirit that was embodied in that defiant last stand by Yusuf al Azmeh. It is that pluckiness in the face of overwhelming odds which characterises the average Syrian, and it is because of General Al Azmeh's bravery that nobody can ever say the French walked into Damascus without a fight. One could say that the Syrians placed a great emphasis on principle, as if an invisible observer will keep track on a score card and one day congratulate them on their stances. On a side note this kind of behaviour is manifest even today in day-to-day dealings with Syrians - something which often baffle foreigners with more practical considerations, but I digress.

I sometimes wonder why the Syrians didn't fall back into the land and begin a war of attrition, but in reality, and with the European powers having just defeated the Central Powers, there was no hope for any kind of insurgency movement. Even in the Arabian peninsula, that some people say had never been conquered by the Europeans, the Saud's themselves were dependent on payments of gold made by the British to various tribal chiefs. Furthermore, the embryonic Syrian state simply did not have the infrastructure or arms industry that could sustain a conflict with a country like France. Rather interesting to note, however, was that what the new Syrian kingdom lacked in resources, it more than made up for in the quality of her people. Far from idealising the individuals of the time, it is fair to point out the dedication and idealism that the members of (what we can now call) the old Syrian establishment were imbued with. A man like General Yousef al Azmeh was thirty seven years old, and had previously commanded Ottoman troops against the Tsarist army in the Caucasus. During the great revolt he had defected and joined the rebels, after which King Faisal appointed him the Syrian minister of defence. Graduated from the Ottoman military academy in 1906, at a time when the Middle East still had institutions that were capable of producing quality officers, al Azmeh must have recognised the hopelessness of the situation. But, as is usual with such men, personal regard was set aside for a greater good. It might be that in times of great upheaval, it is easier to make such choices, but regardless, we can only consider his fateful decision to fight as a sign of great personal bravery. One can only speculate about how a present-day Syrian minister of defence would behave during a war.

The Battle of  Maysaloon was not the only resistance, furthermore, and there were revolts and resistance throughout Syria. In 1926 Ibrahim Hananu led the 'Aleppan Revolt' against the French, and the country was racked by strikes and protests. Sadly, it seems that as hard as they tried the Syrians just could not keep the French out of the country, and on August 1st, the 'King of Syria' was sent packing to Haifa, whilst the Syrian army ended up disbanded. In a way, this short-lived experiment in optimism seems to prefigure most Arab attempts at state building. Whether it was Muhammad Ali Pasha's attempt to build a modern Egyptian state, and ending up indebting the country to European powers that would occupy it, or Faisal's attempt to finance a Kingdom of Syria, the initial attempts to create modern states in the Middle East seem to have consistently failed, or been made to fail. Even today, in the supposedly independent countries of the region, there is not one state in the Middle East (apart from Turkey) that is worthy of the name. All are just as reliant on foreign legitimacy and aid today as their predecessors were at the start of the twentieth century.

The unhappy King Faisal himself was later made the ruler of Iraq, where his ill-fated son would later be killed in a coup that overthrew the Hashemite monarchy there. Another notable member of Faisal's government was Hashem al Atassi, the prime minister at the time, and a man who would later become Syria's first president and was also responsible for framing Syria's first republican constitution. It is thanks to men of his calibre that Syrians today can look back to a republican and, albeit brief, democratic history. The gradual domination of Syrian society by the Syrian Baath party from 1963 meant the virtual extinction of any Syrian statesmen of high calibre to the present. But in 1920 Syria still had an educated class of scholarly, erudite and (largely) selfless statesmen and intellectuals. In Britain their equivalents would have been referred to as gentlemen. These men were not to be confused only with the beyks and bashas who had held title under the old Ottoman system. Although many of them might have come from rather wealthy landowning families, it would be unfair to apply later notions of class and privilege to them. We must judge these men based on the standard of their time, and not on the standards we have accumulated since the rise of the first Soviets in the place of Czarist Russia. Ideology, as far as I have been able to tell, was not a major factor in the motivations of men who were moulded in the bosom of an Ottoman Empire that, in spite of its decline, still viewed itself as an equal with European powers. The accompanying confidence, as well as a background of wealth and privilege, influenced the way that a Levantine Syrian, or an Egyptian, would have viewed the European - as opposed to a tribal chief from Africa or Borneo, with the greatest respect to such chiefs of course.

Perhaps sensing this, it is under the guise of a League of Nations mandate that the French sought to control the area they referred to as "The Levant". In a trend that would become more common in the twentieth century, colonial powers were now careful to cloak their naked ambitions with a legal framework. Unlike in Algeria, which was invaded and colonised by the French in the nineteenth century, the French just could not apply the same brutal mission civilisatrice that it had used in its African colonies.This did not mean that they could not brutalise the Syrians, quite the opposite, and in 1925 they used counter-insurgency methods that would later be perfected in Indochina and Algeria. Their bombing of Damascus in 1926 was so bloody that it inspired the Egyptian poet Ahmed Shawki to say the now famous line:

And at freedom's red door knocks every bloodied fist

It is with those same bloody fists that Syrians have been beating on freedom's door ever since, but that is another story. Insofar as the French attempted to dominate the Syrians, it seemed almost inevitable that their efforts were doomed to fail. Due to the deliberate and steady efforts of men like al Atassi and the then influential National Bloc, an agreement for gradual independence was forced out of the French government. Then, in 1936, Mr Hashem al Atassi was elected as the first president of the Syrian Republic.The man himself was a fascinating character, and sadly his life has been examined academically far less than he deserves. What most people, including many Syrians, mistakenly assume is that the Syrian state came into existence with the departure of the last French soldiers, but in reality Syria had a functioning state that technically pre-dated the arrival of the French. Not only that, but Syrian institutions and statesmen had their own roots in the imperial state of the Ottomans, meaning that Syria and Syrian statesmen did not just erupt into existence in 1946. The fact that these institutions would later become compromised by a political party and then made subservient to a tyrant is a separate matter, and one that I wish to examine later. 

The fact that Syria had some of the institutions of governance and a class of educated and urbane statesmen who could engage in a political process does not mean that the country was a nation state in the European sense. The country itself was divided by the French into six separate states: Greater Lebanon; a state for Damascus; a state for the Druze; a state for Aleppo; a state for the Alawites on Syria's coast; and an Alexandretta state. By the time the French had left Syria, Greater Lebanon and the Alexandretta province were no longer parts of the modern Syrian state, but the Alawite and Druze states remained a part of Syria whilst Damascus, much to the chagrin of the Aleppan elite, was made the capital of the country. Throughout the French mandate, and like in many other French colonies, ethnic and religious divisions were amplified and encouraged. This in itself was to have a big impact on the way minorities in the country saw themselves, and much later the rule of one minority would cause unprecedented damage to the state's infrastructure. I have noticed a trend in modern day Syrian historians to try and portray the uprisings of Druse and Alawite leaders such as Sultan al Atrash and Saleh al Ali as inspired by Syrian nationalism, the reality seems to be that they were motivated by much more practical considerations regarding the treatment and status of their minorities under the French authorities. In Syria under the French mandate, the term "A Syrian Nation" could only be applied in the loosest sense possible, and some members of the Druze and Alawite communities could justifiably have expected the formation of their own states, especially after 1920, when the French created the separate entity of Lebanon to be ruled by the Christian Maronites.

For the Arab nationalists, it seemed that with the end of Faisal's Kingdom of Syria the dream of a free and independent Arab nation was now firmly beyond reach. This freedom that was achieved mostly through Western guns proved, in the end, illusory. The Great Arab Revolt petered out following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the rise of ideology would, for the rest of the twentieth century, divide the peoples of the region. Most notably, the rise of an Arabic nationalist ideology would itself cause problems within Syria, where Syrian Kurds were later denied nationality by the Syrian Baath party. Interestingly, the term Syrian Arab Republic was added only after the ill-fated and badly planned union with Nasser's Egypt. In addition, the 'Arabism' of such parties as the Baath, dominated as they came to be by the Alawite and Druze minorities, were viewed quite curiously by the descendants of those Arabs who had led the Great Revolt. Later this radical element, inspired by a mixed range of socialist and leftist ideas, was often at direct odds with the original monarchic elements of the Arabic political spectrum, and eventually the two sides would clash, often violently.  

Ultimately, King Faisal and his Prime Minister Hashem al Atassi were politically outmanoeuvred and out-gunned. The Kingdom of Syria could hardly be called glorious or remarkable in any way, but the important thing was that the Syrians had a good go at it. Sadly, there was simply no way that they could have, with the resources available to them, go up against Britain and France without the assistance of another great power, and enthusiasm alone was not enough to stop French troops from entering Damascus. The short-lived Kingdom of Syria was probably doomed to failure from the start, but as in Maysaloon, the example it set would capture the imagination of generations of Syrians to come. It would also sow the seeds of deep mistrust towards the West, a mistrust that continues till the present and has its roots in what was regarded as a betrayal by the British and the French through the Sykes-Picot agreement. 

.

The Beginning of the Beginning of the Beginning of the End for Assad...

The situation in Syria just can't go on like this. Every day I see the trickle of deaths continue and still the world is paralysed as this regime continues to savage the very people it is supposed to protect. This is the ugly side to the Assad's rule, if ever there was any other, and it is very clear now that even a conspiracy is preferable to many Syrians than to live one more day under this regime. I would not be surprised to see Bashar and his top advisors hanged by the neck in the central Damascene square of Marjeh, should the people ever get a hold of them. The fact that the Syrian regime will not even meet the president of the Arab League shows just how arrogant and single minded Assad's family is with regards to clinging to power. I suspect that any kind of frank discussion regarding the reality on the ground will never be conceded unless within the most inner circles of the Assad and Makhlouf families. In a way, I'm almost proud that Syria managed to produce such frightening political animals, but this senseless bloodshed cannot be accepted in any way. The best guard dog in the world must be put down should it ever turn on its owners or become rabid. Goodbye Mr Assad...

.

I've just finished reading Dostoesvsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov' and I cried at the end. I have never read a book which had that effect on me. Then again, I might not be the person I used to be.

.

Syria and Wikileaks

I think the Wikileaks document talking about the slaughter of Islamic fundamentalists in a Syrian prison couldn't have come at a better time. When the Syrian regime and its apologists are busy frightening people about the "Iraq" scenario, nothing could blow their argument out of the water more than allegations that the carnage in Iraq was as much the fault of Syria as it was the United States or Iran. So what else will they come up with now?

.

Present Day Arabic Philosophy

An interesting thought occurred to me earlier today. The medieval Arabs had been very interested in Greek philosophy, but they had always focused exclusively on the scientific or ethical but without attaching much importance to Greek political philosophy. Of course al Farabi wrote the "Virtuous City" which was basically an Arabised version of Plato's Republic, but other than that, Greek ideas of democracy and constitutional laws were quietly ignored. Whatever the reason, it stands in direct contrast to the present state of Arabic philosophers or philosophy lecturers who focus almost entirely on Western political philosophy but give very little thought to ethics and conceptions of happiness or the good life.

One reason I can think of as to why this is happening is because religion today is largely a tool used by the various Arab regimes and kingdoms to subdue the population and legitimise their rule. As a result, religion is largely depoliticised, meaning that religious 'scholars' (and I use the term very loosely) can sit back all day and give their fatwas about how long a man's hair should or shouldn't be, the best way to pray in outer space, or that Mickey Mouse should be killed. So basically religion is filling a gap on a popular and individual level, that philosophy used to occupy. Since religion is no longer of use to a supposedly secular dictatorship, it can no longer have as much influence on laws, politics and governance. Of course, this is contrary to the popular view many Arabs hold, that religion and the state in the Arab world should be separate. This explanation shows that, perhaps, the two are already separated, and that in fact the state sits on top of religion, which is now only influential on a popular and individual level.

Five hundred years ago, the political system of the caliphate, supported by religion, was considered (arrogantly) to be superior to anything a foreigner (like the Greeks) could devise. But when it came to individual happiness and morality, there was a lot of leeway and investigation. Religion did not oppose this as much as some people commonly believe. One good example I can think of is how al Ghazali's Ihya Uloom al Din (Revival of the Religious Sciences) includes, almost wholesale, the entire first section of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, as if it is al Ghazali's own view on the subject (this is in Book One, Book of Knowledge). Of course religion did clash fiercely with metaphysical arguments in philosophy, but, when it came to the ethics, the two were seen to complement each other. I think this is something quite interesting, and worth stopping over.

.

The Syrian Update

Another Friday comes and goes, and twenty two more Syrians are said to have been killed by the Assad regime's violent thugs and security services. Conventional wisdom says that if you are in a hole then you should stop digging, but Bashar al Assad does not have conventional wisdom. In fact, he has no wisdom at all. Now that the EU have imposed unilateral sanctions on the country, I do wonder what, if any, cards Mr Assad holds at all. The only response he's been able to conceive has been violence, violence and more violence. At the same time, his sycophants have been promoting the mother of all lies, fervently arguing that Syria is in the grip of a massive conspiracy involving al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Turkey, Israel, Europe and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. In a recent article on Now Lebanon, a man called James Kirchik gives a devastating riposte against Joshua Landis, a man who has been able to establish himself as an expert of some sort on Syria. I've commented, as have others, about Landis's pro-regime slant and unapologetic pro-Assad views, so this is nothing new. There are plenty of others who are like him, and I will watch their inevitable 'excommunication' from polite society in Syria with a lot of amusement.

Meanwhile, the Syrian opposition still seems to be taking its sweet time forming a viable alternative to Mr Assad. I agree with my good friend Robin from Pulse Media (his recent interview is available here) on the slow but steady evolution this opposition has been experiencing, the delays might actually be a good thing because the nascent opposition does need an incubation period of sorts for it to become effective in any way. But of course that all means nothing whilst unarmed Syrians are still getting their teeth kicked in by Assad's thugs. 

I think, and I'm not just saying this because I am a Syrian, the Syrian people are setting the true example for an Arab revolution and the effects of their victory, when it arrives, will be far deeper and more profound than I can imagine at the moment. There is a rather strong international consensus that Syrians wish to resolve this matter alone, regardless of all the calls for NATO intervention. The region, as I've long been saying to whoever cares to listen, is in the midst of a great game between Iran and her allies on the one hand, and the United States and her allies (especially Israel) on the other. Syria has always been in the pro-Iran camp, whether for matters relating to realpolitik or for sectarian reasons. 

I used to believe it was the former, but these days, and now that the ugly face of Assad's regime is appearing, it might very well be the case that Syria was being treated, to all extents and purposes, as an 'Alawite' state. But this is all conjecture and irrelevant. I doubt very much that Syria will remain in the pro-Iran camp for long after Assad is ousted from power, but it is not a given that the Syrians will charge into the arms of the United States and Europe. Rather, and this is probably how the game will be played, Turkey is going to have a major role to play in a post-Assad Syria. Iran is not going to be welcome in Syria for quite some time but, if Syria's future government is smart, they should take care to maintain relations with Iran whilst also using that as a bargaining chip with the United States and the West. Syria's clever positioning in the political arena that is the Middle East has, for a long time, helped it to punch way above its own weight. There's no reason why that successful manipulation of the new great game should change just because we've gotten rid of a dictator. The underlying motivation of a free and relatively democratic Syria should be for whatever is in the interests of Syria, and not for revenge or spite.

Finally, I think this Burhan Ghaliouni guy is a likely candidate for a future president of Syria, but I don't know anything about him. I used to try to read his writings on his blog, and remember being utterly bored by his dry and unimaginative style; I still am, but that might be what Syria needs. Somebody like him might be a good president, but perhaps the country should have a far more wily political animal for Prime Minister. Who that should be, I don't know yet. It's not even clear what a post-Assad government will look like yet. What is definite so far is that the political landscape in Syria is sheer carnage right now. 

Oh, one more note. I was thinking about these shabiha thugs that the regime has been hiring. Once Assad falls, the future Syrian government has to do something about them very quickly. With their pay evaporated, along with their benefactor, these thugs can quite comfortably switch, if they have not done so already, to a life of crime. So watch this space.

.

يمة موال الهوى

.