Categories
Personal

Making Sense of Syria

Translation: We are all with you.

Much of the world has been aghast at news coming out of Syria, as the demonstrations now common in much of the Arab world have been brutally suppressed. Government sources, however, claim they are fighting an armed insurgency. Media, notably, has been blocked from the country, lending credibility to the idea that the government has something to hide.

We have been in Jordan for a short visit, and while here I was able to meet with a Syrian Christian resident in Amman. She is originally from Allepo, and was able to provide some of her perspective on the matter. It is only one opinion, of course, but provides a local perspective that goes beyond claims and counter-claims. For a good journalistic account of Syria, here is a link from The Economist. Here is another account from Christianity Today, focusing on the Syrian Christian perspective. It will resemble much of what follows.

The source, who preferred not to be named, will be called Samiya. She did not believe she was under any suspicion, but was planning a trip to Syria to take care of some administrative matters, and thought best to keep her name out of the news.

In short, Samiya believed both accounts to be true. The Syrian people have been steadfast in their peaceful protest for national reform. The government has been countering this group with violent repression, but as in protests elsewhere, they carry on.

At the same time, certain groups within Syria have undertaken violent militia action against the regime, and have mixed in with the protestors. These have been putting certain villages under pressure, and the Syrian army has had several bloody encounters with them. Samiya believed Jisr al-Sughur, on the Turkey border not far from Aleppo, fell into this category.

Within this struggle, she believed, lies were being told on both sides. Certainly the government is not being honest concerning its suppression of peaceful protest, using the militias as an excuse for further crackdown. Yet the tales of horror have also been exaggerated by the reform party. Several weeks ago a terrible tale spread on the internet about a boy who had died in the hands of security, revealing severe torture and mutilation of his body. Samiya, however, heard statements from relatives in the boy’s family, stating that while the boy did die at the hands of security, the torture marks were administered after he was handed over to his family. They (or those within the violent opposition) desecrated him in an effort to rally more of the population against the regime.

Samiya believed these militia groups, and the families associated with them, were hardline Sunni/Salafi parties funded and encouraged by Saudi Arabia. Knowing Syria to be a key ally of Iran, Saudi Arabia would greatly wish to see the fall of the regime. In the aftermath, the minority Shia Alawite autocratic rule would give way to some sort of Sunni governance. This would also likely lead to an end of funding of the Hizbollah party in Lebanon; interestingly, the head of Hizbollah is among the only personalities to rally to the defense of the regime.

Though they have not rallied to the defense, Samiya understands Israel, oddly enough, to quietly resist the fall of the regime. Though Syrian political rhetoric is strongly anti-Israeli, there has been almost no conflict on Israel’s northern border during the Bashar al-Assad presidency. While Syria does support Hizbollah, Samiya claimed this was to create a resistance force on the border against possible Israeli expansion. Lebanon is a weak government, and Hizbollah makes difficult any future advance into Beirut – which Israel has attacked before. From there, it is only a few dozen kilometers to Damascus. In any case, while Israel considers Hizbollah a thorn in its side, it fears more greatly the chaos which might prevail should the regime fall. As with worries in Egypt, better the enemy you know, than the one you don’t.

Samiya believed that one of the reasons for Western hesitation in Syria reflects the above difference in perspective. Many believe that politics in the Middle East is orchestrated around the US-Saudi Arabia-Israel alliance. Within this set-up, Egypt is largely a pawn (though possibly now seeking more independent foreign policy), Turkey is an emerging player, and Iran is the enemy. During the Egyptian revolution the US was quick to call for the fall of Mubarak, trusting that Egypt would remain within this overall structure.

Yet with Syria, the United States finds itself between two allies. Saudi Arabia would like the Iranian ally to fall, while Israel is reticent. American equivocation can be explained by its middle position between the two. It may well be the future of Syria lies mainly in the hands of the Assad family and the protestors against it. But it also may be the future will be shaped by the direction the United States eventually leans.

As for the actual interaction between the Assad family and the protestors, Samiya believed that Bashar was not naturally a butcher, and was not the prime mover behind the repression. Rather, she believed that however he may desire to reform (though he has had several years to do so previously), family military and business forces cannot contemplate losing the primary role the Alawites maintain in society. In this repression, then, Bashar is complicit, but also too weak to do anything otherwise.

Finally, Samiya spoke of the Christian participation in the demonstrations. They have been present, but many Christians have been reluctant to speak against the regime. The Alawite minority has ruled Syria by co-opting other minority groups, including Christians, and backing the dominant Sunni upper-to-middle class. Some fear there could be sectarian war against Alawites, Christians, and Druze, should chaos grip the state while a power vacuum sorts itself out.

Samiya played down this possibility, but did state her personal preference for the regime to stay while carrying out significant reforms that would change the system over time, though democratic participation. The regime is brutal, and Samiya could not understand why more Christians, on humanitarian grounds, did not enroll in greater numbers within the peaceful demonstrations. Reform is absolutely necessary, but many Christians are standing on the sidelines.

To repeat the earlier warning, it should be understood that Samiya is only a source – outside of the country at that – and does not fully understand what is happening within Syria. Her perspective, however, helps put together information that come through piecemeal in the headlines. In truth, a jigsaw puzzle has only one correct solution, but until all pieces are collected, multiple constructed realities are possible.

May God grant peace to the Syrian people and bring about a just resolution with as little bloodshed as possible. As it is already too late, may forgiveness and grace characterize all parties in the days to come.

Categories
Personal

America Accused of Promoting Sectarian Tension

Yahia al-Gamal

Today, the Deputy Prime Minister, Yahia al-Gamal, publically accused the United States and Israel of fermenting sectarian tension in Egypt. This was on the heels of a similar statement made by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Though it was not their only commenton the matter, which included introspection and self-critique, it continues a path of blaming outside forces, particularly the discredited Israelis.

That the United States was named was particularly surprising to me. On the one hand, the US is still a primary benefactor of Egypt. On the other, as an American, it is difficult to imagine my nation involved in such evil. I can imagine our international pressure, our use of spies, even our meddling in governments and coup d’etats. Such examples are well documented in history.

As a nation we like to believe in our goodness, and I believe that at base this is not a lie. Yet we should not be deceived that our primary motivation, like that of all nations, is for our interest. While pursuit of self-interest is not necessarily evil, it is sub-good. Morality demands the pursuit of the interest of others, along with self.

I discovered a very interesting article today about US history in Syria. Today there is near universal condemnation of the regime, although, in an indirect way, the US had a hand in creating what now exists. The story goes back to 1947, and has stunning old interview footage with Americans who had a hand in ‘democracy promotion’. Here is an excerpt for the article to introduce the subject:

What is happening in Syria feels like one of the last gasps of the age of the military dictators. An old way of running the world is still desperately trying to cling to power, but the underlying feeling in the west is that somehow Assad’s archaic and cruel military rule will inevitably collapse and Syrians will move forward into a democratic age.

That may, or may not, happen, but what is extraordinary is that we have been here before. Between 1947 and 1949 an odd group of idealists and hard realists in the American government set out to intervene in Syria. Their aim was to liberate the Syrian people from a corrupt autocratic elite – and allow true democracy to flourish. They did this because they were convinced that “the Syrian people are naturally democratic” and that all that was necessary was to get rid of the elites – and a new world of “peace and progress” would inevitably emerge.

What resulted was a disaster, and the consequences of that disaster then led, through a weird series of bloody twists and turns, to the rise to power of the Assad family and the widescale repression in Syria today.

I thought I would tell that story.

Click here to read it.

What strikes me at the start of the story is the innocence of the American effort. From appearances, we really were trying to help. As our attempts stalled, however, our interference became more and more direct, until we alienated the population altogether. Development of the Syrian autocracy lies in their own hands, but the United States gave a good, inadvertent jump start to the process.

Conspiracies abound in this part of the world, and while I usually do my best to consider the purported reality behind each one, I cannot bring myself to make sense of how the US profits if Muslims and Christians are killing each other in Egypt. Perhaps I am unwilling to. Less biased readers are invited to fill in the story in the comments.

What we should never do, however, is doubt our own potential for evil. Small moral compromises – even for the sake of good – can easily lead to greater and greater sins. I also believe the maxim to be true: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power of the United States is not absolute, certainly not in Egypt. Yet if we do not consider our own corruption, we are helpless to prevent its occurrence.

Today, one friend explained the comment from the Armed Forces as indicative of their frustration that the United States is now speaking directly to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. During the days of Mubarak, the government kept a monopoly on international communication. ‘Manipulation of Islamist groups’, as stated, can simply mean this.

Or it could mean more. I would hope the comments of the deputy prime minister are only a rhetorical play to his audience. Politicians the world over can make exaggerated statements for effect, serving whatever interests they believe fitting. It was not too long ago that Islamist groups called for the dismissal of al-Gamal, due to his supposed anti-Islamist viewpoints. Maybe he is mending fences.

The point is, we do not know. We have many historic national sins; we may have unknown present ones. I doubt the accusation is true. I hope the accusation is not true. Please, may the accusation not be true.