Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sarmad17

Syrian Exceptionalism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

For those amongest us who strive

The Arab awakening and Syrian exceptionalism

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/07/the_arab_awakening_and_syrian_exceptionalism

Cleavage in political culture between the domestic and external could not have been better illustrated than in President Bashar Assad's March 30 televised address to the Syrian people. Its style perturbed, and then called down almost universal disdain, externally -- for being both insufficient and ill-judged. In Syria, where I was, the address played rather differently, at least for many. Understanding just why reactions were so divergent points to a different logic behind the address to the one imputed from outside. In its way, the event symbolizes how Assad's situation is indeed so very different to that of a Mubarak or a Ben Ali -- which had become the unique lens through which his response was being judged -- particularly in the West.

Of course in Western culture, a profound crisis demands due seriousness: A graven-faced president would sit behind an imposing desk, with the symbolic tokens of authority, and with an array of flags artfully painting the gravitas of the moment. But here was President Assad jocularly and informally addressing parliament, occasionally chuckling at his own jokes -- and even engaging in lighthearted banter with some quite rowdy members of his audience. How "unpresidential," a Western politician might murmur to himself at such a key moment, and "so lacking in specifics on reform."

But this was its point: Assad's style was intentionally informal. It spoke to a different image than a stereotype: it was of a young leader, one who was not ossified by time and convention. It was a broad hint to a domestic audience, accustomed to nuance, that the President really does believe in reform. This conviction about Assad -- that he is not old guard -- is widely held in Syria, even by many of those who have been demonstrating in the streets. Most Syrians do believe that the President did not order the security forces to use live fire, but forbade it. This is the difference between Syria and, say, Egypt. There, everyone knew Mubarak would never, ever reform. Most Syrians however believe that Assad instinctively is reformist.

Assad's address was, to an extent, an audacious one -- carefully tilted toward the particular Syrian context, rather than to the general context of (other) Arab states and the regional revolutionary fervor. In his interview in January with the Wall Street Journal, the president was very clear about the absolute necessity for internal reform and for respecting the peoples' dignity:

It is about doing something … to change the society, and we have to keep up with this change, as a state and as institutions … it is about … the people's feeling and dignity, about the people participating in the decisions of their country. It is about another important issue … [about being] very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence between your policy and the people's beliefs and interests, you will have this vacuum that creates disturbance. So people do not only live on interests [alone]; they also live on beliefs…

Very plainly, Assad was committing himself to reform. In his recent address, he repeated it: "Without reform we are on the path of destruction," but then he chose deliberately not to offer a list of concessions to those who had so far demonstrated. This omission was the most carefully deliberated and calculated aspect of his speech. Recall that the Syrian state was not in peril. No senior figure has defected from it, and the army remains loyal. The protest movement in Daraa so far has failed to take root in the cities. The number of anti-demonstrators that turned out in Damascus, Aleppo, and Hama, three of Syria's four largest cities, numbered in the hundreds and not the thousands, while the pro-demonstrations in those cities were massive.

Even in Daraa, the site of the biggest demonstrations and the site of the gratuitous use of live fire against the protesters, inhabitants believe they know the identity of the official who ordered the firing and also the prominent personage to whom he is linked. They are deeply angry to be sure, but their anger is not primarily channeled at the president.

Externally, the context of Syria had been simplified to a black-and-white "would the president do reform or dig in?" In reality, this was not the issue in Syria -- even if it was, and is, the issue in most of the Arab world. There was no struggle about whether to reform: The debate was about how to proceed. The real debate was about how best to implement reform in a way that could not be used by a minority in order to discredit, and ultimately to devalue, and block all reform.

Assad already had implicitly acknowledged internal dissatisfaction with the (heavy-handed, frequently inept, and often corrupt) administration of the state. He also had recognized that the new Arab consciousness required real popular participation in decision-making. But, at the same time he noted, in the external sphere, Syria has stood on the right side of history -- a key point that sets Syria apart from most other Arab states: Assad had opposed the war in Iraq and has supported the resistance in Palestine. To the Wall Street Journal, Assad emphasized that, in external affairs, he had been closely aligned to the core beliefs and ideology of the people -- in marked contrast to other Arab rulers, such as Mubarak, who was viewed as a Western and Israeli stooge. The key was to repeat this principle in the domestic sphere, Assad indicated.

This foreign-policy stance has given Assad personal popularity in the region, and at home. But it has also brought Syria enemies: It is evident that some in the region, and beyond, would relish any discomfort caused to him, hoping to see his foreign policy weakened. Just as some see that Mubarak's demise weakened Fatah, so too do some hope that upheaval in Syria might weaken Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli commentators too have been suggesting over recent weeks that the Arab awakening might have a silver lining: a more democratic Syria might lead to a more accommodating Assad -- to the point, perhaps, that he could be induced to forego his membership of the resistance axis, and to make peace with Israel. Israel is not alone in this wish: Other Arab leaders quietly hope for the same, but their hope lies less in securing a peace with Israel, but in securing the weakening of the Islamist trend that they perceive as threatening their survival.

The threat of foreign and intelligence service intervention in Syria is not some whimsy: It has been a steady drumbeat over the years, and it is clear that the government has documents and intelligence relating to planning emanating from elements in Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to ratchet up any internal Syrian disquiet into a polarizing confrontation. Of particular concern has been Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's characterization of Syria's primary dissension as being one of sectarianism: as a conflict between Sunnis exploited by Alawites (Assad is Alawite). In Latakia there has been evidence of just such attempts to provoke such sectarian fears.

What then do the massive pro-Assad demonstrations seem to say? I suspect that many of those marching have seen too clearly what sectarian strife has done to Iraq -- (there are over a million Iraqi refugees in Syria); and many may also have been unnerved by the sudden Western intervention in Libya and the threat there of civil war. They have seen that before as well. They, too, want reform: They share a conviction that Assad also wants it and were demonstrating largely against those elements who seek precisely such a descent into civil strife that will signal an end to that hope. Many Syrians may suspect that the externally promoted concept of reform may be a Trojan horse being used against Syria and the resistance axis more widely.

Assad's address therefore was to this latter group -- a group that did not exist as a majority elsewhere in the region. The pro-Assad demonstrators sought a signal of self-confidence and will, but will also now be looking to see that promised reforms do indeed materialize. Assad seems to intend that reform -- the ending of the emergency laws, the lifting of restrictions on the press, and a new law to provide for a plurality of political parties -- progresses rapidly. Success in this project depends crucially, of course, on the president's ability to stem and to stop the killing of protesters, too.

If Assad succeeds -- and it seems, thus far, to be heading in that direction -- the calculation by some external analysts that Assad will emerge somehow weakened by greater popular participation seems improbable: Much of his personal popularity rests precisely on his foreign-policy stance, in which he has been closely aligned with popular sentiment. More probable is that Assad will emerge with his stature enhanced, and Syria will be set on a course for resuming its traditional place at the center of Arab politics. Correctly understood, a strengthened Syria offers a better prospect for resolving present regional tensions, rather than aggravating them.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

For those amongest us who strive

The Arab awakening and Syrian exceptionalism

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/07/the_arab_awakening_and_syrian_exceptionalism

Maybe you should of just included the comments section for this article also, as it explains exactly what people thought of it !!. Note the article was posted in 7th April, and likely written a few days earlier, and well before the current murderous onslaught of Syrian security forces against the Syrian people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Bashar might be a reformist.

But he has to answer for the crimes of his father and of the Ba'ath Party.

Why were 35,000 Muslims killed in the town of Hama in 1982 ?

The protestors do not demand reform from Mr. Assad.

they demand that he respects their religious sentiments (Islam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Muslim Brotherhood is doing their usual tactics of spreading false information to slander those that stand their way just like they are trying to do in Egypt with the Copts. Lots of these protests that turn violent happen in cities where the Muslim Brotherhood operated extensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Assads are butchers and it is proved every day. How the same person can support the people in Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen and not in Syria is baffling. I guess they are waiting for Iran to change its position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^

I really don't care that much about Libya anymore. I don't want Gaddafi to stay, but at the same time the opposition is such a mess of different groups, I have trouble supporting them. I only hope the regime I'd like to see there comes about but I don't really support either side that much anymore. With Syria, I think innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire of a battle between the government and more violent opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood or maybe even separatist groups. The cities these events are happening are former strongholds of the Muslim Brotherhood and have since been very conservative Sunni communities. So when fighting breaks out, some random person who may or may not have wanted anything to do with the conflict gets pegged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^

I really don't care that much about Libya anymore. I don't want Gaddafi to stay, but at the same time the opposition is such a mess of different groups, I have trouble supporting them. I only hope the regime I'd like to see there comes about but I don't really support either side that much anymore. With Syria, I think innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire of a battle between the government and more violent opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood or maybe even separatist groups. The cities these events are happening are former strongholds of the Muslim Brotherhood and have since been very conservative Sunni communities. So when fighting breaks out, some random person who may or may not have wanted anything to do with the conflict gets pegged.

Well you re no revolutionary that's for sure. Don't you think it is good that the rebellion represents all types of Libyans or is it only Shia you care about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you re no revolutionary that's for sure. Don't you think it is good that the rebellion represents all types of Libyans or is it only Shia you care about?

That's a bit of a stupid question. I care about the side or sides I believe in amongst the rebels and hope that they come out on top. Do you think it is great that rebels have recruited Al-Qaida members to fight for them against Gaddafi? I doubt you do and I doubt that all the rebels particularly enjoy it either, but it's just the reality of the situation many face that they must align themselves with groups they don't agree with to accomplish a common goal, but as we've seen with Egypt, once that common goal has been met, then those old antagonisms pop up once more and more divisions are made. So with countries like Libya, it's pretty much the same thing. So I figure instead attaching myself as a fanboy to the opposition as whole, I'll just support the particular parties within it that I personally agree with and reject those I don't since it's obvious that the opposition is made up of various political groups each with it's own agenda, from Al-Qaida members to Hezbollah sympathizers.

With Tunisia, I can't say I supported that revolution because I have no idea what the situation in Tunisia was to begin with. Why am I gonna say "I'm glad their leader is gone" when I didn't know what they're leader did wrong in the first place and how can I say "The opposition were traitors" when I don't know what, if anything, the previous Tunisian regime did so well. So I do not voice support or criticism for Tunisia's uprising in any manner. With Egypt, it's the same with Libya for me, I thought it best for Mubarak to leave because despite some of what he did that was good, he wasn't properly satisfying the needs of his people and was maintaining too strict of a control over them, but my actual support is only for those within the opposition whose ideas I agree with not with those who participated in the uprising whom I do not such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafi groups. With Syria, it is hard to confirm the reports on both sides because certain foreign journalists cannot get in the country and Syria State News is state run so of course it's not exactly the most impartial source. So my position with them is pro-regime yet pro-reform due to what little facts I can confirm for myself by cross examining various news reports and footage from both sides.

My biggest concerns are Bahrain and Syria, with Bahrain taking the lead as the Middle Eastern country I am most concerned about. I think it's stupid to try to group all these revolutions as the same and just hop on the bandwagon of an opposition you don't know whose goals or views are. I'm of a particular political persuasion and will support whatever resistance, whatever fraction of a diverse resistance, or whatever regime or fraction of a regime I feel agrees with my political views.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I wasn't a fan of Bashar way before these events. But my point with syria is that i havn't seen the protest movement on the same scale as it was in all the other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Brothers

We need to support Assad's foreign policy, but do we need to support his internal policy. Everyubody knows he is a Ba'athist, secularist who always tries to marginalize pious Muslims. Don't slander the Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood is a pious, brave organization that is fighting for the cause of islam and Sharia and nothing else, as Syed Qutb said - " Those who are friends of Sharia are our friends, those who are enemies of Sharia are our enemies". The Assad regime in Syria is not Sharia-friendly, therefore there is no Islamic obligation upon believers to obey it. The Iranian regime is a Sharia-friendly regime, therefore it is Wajib upon every believer to obey it.

NB - The Brotherhood is even more anti-Israel than Assad. And if Copts, Alawis, Druzes, Maronites feel uncomfortable with the Brotherhod coming to power in Egypt or Syria, they can ship off to Israel. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon are lands of the pious believers..

Edited by Yousuf Ahmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I wasn't a fan of Bashar way before these events. But my point with syria is that i havn't seen the protest movement on the same scale as it was in all the other countries.

What are you using as a scale, the number of civilian deaths, the ruthlessness of the regime, or the mutilation of children? Please don't let Assad's Israeli policy be your scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regime change in Syria - SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Regime_change_in_Syria Iran-Syria Operations Group - SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran-Syria_Operations_Group Iran Policy Committee - SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Policy_Committee Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Syria_Policy_and_Operations_Group

SYRIA FALSE FLAG ,FACTS HIDDEN AND LEFTOUT BY MSM MEDIA http://syriafalseflag.blogspot.com/ Defend Syria against imperialist aggression http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/06/defend-syria-against-imperialist.html SYRIAWATCH-(CONSPIRACY OR NOT?) http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/06/conspiracy-or-notneocon-think.html France's Alain Juppe on Syria-Globalist degenerate seek UN resolution against Syria http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2011/06/frances-alain-juppe-on-syria-globalist.html

-------------------------------

Al JAZEERA EXPOSED Lies about Syria ''Dead Man talking''

PROOF that 'peaceful protesters' killed Nidal Janoud in Banias http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvrAPRl7Rs LIES ABOUT SYRIA - ALJAZEERA EXPOSED LYING AGAIN WITH FAKE VIDEOS

Defend Syria against imperialist aggression http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/06/08/defend-syria-against-imperialist-aggression/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no pious Muslim will ever accept the Flag of Syria. It is a concocted flag of the Ba'athist regime. It is the flag of 3 cruel and anti-Islamic Dictators - Anwar Sadat, Hafez Al Assad and Saddam Hussein. It is the product of the anti-Islamic ideology known as "Arab nationalism" and "Pan-Arabism".

Edited by Yousuf Ahmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yousuf Ahmed

I'm with you brother.

Well, honestly, I'm surprised. This is support from an unlikely quarter. Somebody who hates pious Muslims and the Sharia, I don't need his support, he is the same to me as the un-Islamic B'athist Syrian regime is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, honestly, I'm surprised. This is support from an unlikely quarter. Somebody who hates pious Muslims and the Sharia, I don't need his support, he is the same to me as the un-Islamic B'athist Syrian regime is.

I didn't say I supported you, I meant I agree with you on one issue. I don't know where you got the "hate" from but I'm not worried about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×