On 15th September, a group of Syrian opposition activists announced in Turkey the creation of a council designed to present a united front against President Bashar Assad's regime, which has waged a bloody crackdown on anti-government protesters during the past six months.
The Syrian opposition consists of a variety of groups with often differing ideologies, including Islamists and secularists, and there have been many meetings of dissidents who say they represent the opposition. But activists said the new "Syrian National Council," formed during a meeting in Turkey, is the most serious initiative aimed at bringing revolutionary forces together.
It groups some 140 opposition figures, including exiled opponents and 70 dissidents inside Syria, said Bassma Kodmani, a Paris-based academic. Kodmani added that the council "categorically opposes" any foreign intervention or military operations to bring down Assad's regime. "We are in agreement over the peaceful nature of the revolution," she said.
A popular uprising began in Syria in mid-March, amid a wave of anti-government protests in the Arab world that have already toppled autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Assad has reacted with deadly force that the UN estimates has left some 2,600 people dead.
The meeting in Istanbul took place as Syrian troops carried out raids in the suburbs of the capital Damascus, the central province of Homs and the northwestern region of Idlib that borders Turkey, activists said.
The new opposition council aims to "convey the Syrian people's just problems on the international platform, to form a pluralist and democratic state", a statement said. It also hopes to bring down the "leadership that is ruling through dictatorship, and to unite the prominent politicians under one umbrella".
The reason it took so long to form the council is that "we wanted to make sure everyone was on board", said Adib Shishakli, an opposition member based in Saudi Arabia. Shishakli said the council would elect a leader at a later time.
Ahmad Ramadan, another opposition member, said the council would form 10 bureaus, including a foreign relations office dedicated to "relaying the demands of the revolution, the people's requests to the outside world". He said it would also work to form a television station to help overthrow the regime.
Louay Safi, a US-based academic, said the council is broad-based and includes Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is "open to everyone unless they are against democracy", he said.
The emphasis on unity comes amid fears of civil war between Assad's ruling minority Alawite sect of Shi’ah and the country's Sunni Muslim majority.
Syrian state TV aired excerpts of a video showing army Lt. Col. Hussein Harmoush, one of the first officers to defect after the uprising began. The pro-government daily Al-Watan said he was detained during "a special operation" in Idlib. Harmoush, of the so-called Free Officers Movement, has previously appeared in videos calling on the army to stand by the people instead of the regime.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he dreamed that one day young Syrians will have the same opportunity as young Libyans have for democracy. He made his remarks from Tripoli during his first official visit to Libya since rebel forces ousted dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
In France, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said Syrian opposition members met on 17th September in Paris with French officials, though he did not identify the figures or elaborate on the meetings.
Syrian opposition members in Istanbul said they were in contact with France but had no scheduled talks with French officials this week.
The events in Libya help the rebels in Syria. The Middle East revolutions are spreading by contagion. Young people watch the demonstrations in each others' cities and take inspiration from each others' courage.
The European Union is moving to ratchet up sanctions against Syria's already crippled economy. Assad has lost the support, critically, of his giant neighbour, Turkey, which is concerned with the public relations disaster of Assad's crackdowns, the outflow of refugees from Syria to Turkey and the potential for Syria's substantial Kurdish minority to hook up with their Turkish cousins.
Puzzle of regional politics and Syria
President Obama’s attempts to engage with Syria and lure it away from both Iran and Hezbollah were manifestly unsuccessful. Assad responded to Washington’s overtures by inviting his Iranian counterpart and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to Damascus in March last year in a show of solidarity.
Obama has been even more cautious about Syria than he was about Libya, or indeed Egypt or Tunisia. It took him months to finally come to the conclusion that he should call for Assad to step down as Syria's leader, yet he reached that position about Hosni Mubarak, a much more liberal, less bloody and US-friendly dictator, within weeks.
Why were the Americans so cautious about Syria? Well informed sources suggest several reasons. One was the understandable if extreme caution about becoming too involved in too many conflicts in the Middle East.
Assad, for all his brutality, and all the links he has with Hezbollah in Lebanon, has kept his border with Israel essentially stable. But it would be utterly wrong for the West to take the view that the stability of dictatorship is all that can ever be hoped for.
Another was a very serious concern about the influence of al Qaida affiliates and more general Islamist extremists in the Syrian opposition.
Within Syria, the al Qaida-linked element is greater and the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood is also greater. The risks and uncertainties of a post-Assad Syria are very troublesome.
For Sunnis, there are potentially serious strategic gains from toppling Assad. The Saudi Arabia has a keen interest in removing Assad to crimp Shia/Iran influence. Saudi is emboldened by its recent success in Bahrain thwarting a Shia advance, and will be angling to step onto the front foot.
In a statement in August, the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, called on Assad to stop what he called the ''killing machine and end the bloodshed''. But in a region where leaders have long proved reluctant to criticise each other, the move suggested that Saudi Arabia saw more potential turmoil in Assad staying than in him leaving.
For months, Saudi Arabia, fearful of more unrest in the region, had tried to protect the status quo. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands before its historical responsibility towards her brothers, demanding the stoppage of the killing machine and bloodshed, and the use of reason “before it is too late”, the king said in a statement.
A post-Assad Syria would almost certainly reflect the dominance of its Sunni majority. This would make it unlikely to re-enter an alliance with Iran. It would also make it less likely to continue sponsoring the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah, which has effectively taken a dominant position in the Lebanese government and which, with its massive missile stockpile, is always threatening renewed conflict with Israel. It would be a huge blow to Iran's position in the region.
The Alawite dominance of the Syrian army would surely disappear and this would make that army less effective, and less of a regional threat, at least for a time.
Progressive Turkey might now be set to influence policy objectives throughout the Islamic world. Its influence will surely increase, and there are many friendly steps the West could take in support of that transition.
The Arab League Chief Nabil El Araby met Syria’s president recently and it was reported that the president agreed to take some steps to ease the political turmoil.
Currently, UNSC politics precludes the mandate of intervention in Syria. The Russians and the Chinese are expected to veto as their commercial interests lie in keeping Assad there. Assad is in some ways in an inherently stronger position than Gaddafi. It is highly unlikely that Nato would risk another military intervention in an Arab country and Assad, like everyone else, knows the Libyan rebels would not have prevailed without Nato airpower. Moreover, Assad remains tight with Iran, so he will never be wholly isolated.
Conclusion
Some Western analysts believe the demise of Gaddafi's rule may encourage Assad to embrace a grand bargain with his opponents.
The most important consideration for the West, in Syria and Libya, and indeed in Egypt and Tunisia, is not that these countries become pro-Western. It is rather that they become democratic, peaceful, self-directed societies, pursuing economic development, at peace with their neighbours and not actively anti-West. If that means that their local leaders engage in bouts of rhetorical US-bashing (so long as it's relatively moderate), that would be a reasonable enough outcome.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Banglades Ambassador to the UN, Geneva. |