by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
In less than a month, peaceful Tunisian and Egyptian protesters ousted two of the most authoritarian rulers of the Arab world. The human and economic costs: a total of about 1100 people dead (300 in Tunisia and 800 in Egypt) and some decline in economic growth. These were the dignity revolutions. In contrast, the Syrian peaceful uprising quickly turning into armed rebellion is now 22 months old with over 60,000 people (civilians, rebels, security and military officers, women and children) dead, more than 4,000,000 persons displaced from their homes, and destruction estimated at $70 billion. This is now, without doubt, an ideological/sectarian civil war. Short of a genocidal outcome, the only path to peace is that which relies on reconciliation and dialogue. There can be no preconditions because all sides have blood on their hands at this point. This reality, and the staggering numbers cataloging death and destruction might, forces all sides to reassess their previously held positions. Ideologues who wanted to bend the path of a legitimate peaceful revolution to meet their narrow political and sectarian ends can no longer ignore this reality and the state of the country. The fast emerging developments support these hypotheses.
In the light of the disagreements, one must ask: why did al-Khatib offer to hold direct talks with representatives of the regime? For answers, we must look at the recent events related to the Syrian crisis. I will highlight some of these events that could reconstitute the National Coalition or force the resignation of its current president.
![]() |
Another massacre in Syria: click on image to view video |
In less than a month, peaceful Tunisian and Egyptian protesters ousted two of the most authoritarian rulers of the Arab world. The human and economic costs: a total of about 1100 people dead (300 in Tunisia and 800 in Egypt) and some decline in economic growth. These were the dignity revolutions. In contrast, the Syrian peaceful uprising quickly turning into armed rebellion is now 22 months old with over 60,000 people (civilians, rebels, security and military officers, women and children) dead, more than 4,000,000 persons displaced from their homes, and destruction estimated at $70 billion. This is now, without doubt, an ideological/sectarian civil war. Short of a genocidal outcome, the only path to peace is that which relies on reconciliation and dialogue. There can be no preconditions because all sides have blood on their hands at this point. This reality, and the staggering numbers cataloging death and destruction might, forces all sides to reassess their previously held positions. Ideologues who wanted to bend the path of a legitimate peaceful revolution to meet their narrow political and sectarian ends can no longer ignore this reality and the state of the country. The fast emerging developments support these hypotheses.
Earlier this week, the president of the
National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (the National
Coalition), Mouaz al-Khatib, announced that he is ready to talk directly with
representatives of the Syrian regime. He insisted however, that the regime
releases 160,000 detainees and renew or extend expired passports for Syrians
living outside the country. Meeting on Wednesday in Cairo, some members of the
National Coalition slammed al-Khatib, accusing him of straying from the Doha
agreement, a document on the basis of which the National Coalition was formed.
In the light of the disagreements, one must ask: why did al-Khatib offer to hold direct talks with representatives of the regime? For answers, we must look at the recent events related to the Syrian crisis. I will highlight some of these events that could reconstitute the National Coalition or force the resignation of its current president.
1. Immediately after the formation of the
National Coalition, the U.S. administration placed one of the main Syrian armed
groups, Jabhat al-Nusra, on the list of terrorist organizations. The measure
created a filter that limited the flow of arms into Syria. The legal
implications of the label of terrorism split the opposition and tempered Saudi
and Qatari enthusiasm for arming it. The categorization of the opposition into
terrorist and non-terrorist groups was further enhanced by France’s
intervention in Mali and the French media’s accusation of Qatar of supporting
extremist groups in the Maghreb.
2. Three weeks ago, Assad gave a speech in
which he called for reconciliation talks that excluded opponents he called
"terrorists." Syrian officials said this week that political
opposition figures could return to Damascus for "national dialogue"
and that any charges against them would be dropped. In the same speech, Assad
announced plans for a reconciliation conference with opposition figures
"who have not betrayed Syria.” He totally ignored plans by the UN envoy,
Lakhdar Brahimi, who, according to some observers, was close to bridging the
gap between Russian and American plan for solving the Syrian crisis. Assad’s
speech practically rendered Brahimi’s efforts irrelevant.
3. This week (on Thursday), EU foreign
ministers agreed to keep in place the ban on exporting arms to the Syrian
opposition. This decision was a upset to efforts by some leaders of the
National Coalition who met earlier in the week (Monday and Tuesday) to ask for
$500 million and arms. The meeting, which al-Khatib did not attend, failed to
provide the National Coalition with any tangible support. Moreover, early last
week, France’s foreign minister acknowledged that there is no indication
whatsoever that Assad is about to be overthrown and he communicated this new
assessment to the so-called “Friends of Syria” when representatives of about 50
countries and organizations met in Paris. Initially, the National Coalition
planned to announce the formation of a government in exile during this meeting.
But the lack of enthusiasm “delayed” the announcement.
4. Compared to the failed meetings in Paris
and Cairo, several other international gatherings about Syria were held around
the world and have produced actual results that could help the Syrian people
mitigate the economic and political problems they face. One of such meetings
was held in Kuwait to raise money for Syrian refugees and displaced civilians.
This meeting was not political and perhaps because it was not political it was
very successful. More than $1.6 billion was raised in two days. Importantly,
the meeting, which was attended by representatives of many countries, including
Russia and Iran, highlighted the extent of human suffering and the horror of
war. Although the Syrian government was not represented, its authority was
nonetheless preserved since the money that is intended to be used to help
displaced Syrians inside and outside Syria will be managed by a UN agency,
which will coordinate parts of its activities with the Syrian government. This
fact could explain al-Khatib’s comment about expired passports. Apparently, he
realized that despite France’s (and a handful of other countries’) recognition
of the National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian
people, Assad’s regime is still the only legitimate government in Syria. A
second gathering was held in Geneva and it brought together about 300
representatives of the so-called “civil opposition” and international NGOs. The
participants issued a declaration calling on the world community to take
steps to end the violence in Syria on the basis of the International Geneva
Agreement. Specifically, the participants agreed to “negotiations between the
opposition and the regime to implement the International Geneva Agreement, for
issuing a constitutional declaration to create a Government with full power to
administrate this stage, and work to bring about fair legislature and
presidential elections, under international supervision.”
5. This week, too, more shocking images of
horror emerged: 80 bodies of Syrian civilians were pulled
out of a river near Aleppo. The images showed more victims of summary
executions. The Syrian government accused “terrorists” of kidnapping and
executing civilians living in neighborhoods known for their support to Assad.
The opposition groups accused the regime of the brutal killings. Only an
independent investigation could determine the identity of the victims and the
perpetrators. Nonetheless, regardless of the identity of those who committed
this horrible crime, the images remain shocking. The horrific scene of bodies
scattered along the river bank made more people realize that the agony of the
Syrians is indescribable.
6. Adding to these crucial developments, a
spokesperson for the National Coalition announced today (Friday) that “Syrian
National Coalition President Moaz Alkhatib will meet U.S. Vice President Joe
Biden, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, United Nations envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi.” Reacting to this announcement, Lavrov’s deputy Gennady Gatilov
tweeted, “Media reports about the upcoming Munich meeting… are not true.” It is
not surprising that Russia would hesitate in granting al-Khatib a high profile
meeting given that the latter, when he was selected to head the National
Coalition, demanded that “Russia apologizes to the Syrian people.” Russian
officials are unlikely to agree to a multilateral high profile meeting that
includes a figure they characterized, then, as “amateur.” In other words, this
proposed meeting might turn into a series of one-on-one conversations to assess
the situation and suggest a path forward. It is unlikely that such a meeting,
even if it were to happen, will result in a breakthrough given the gap between
Russia and U.S. positions on Syria and the disagreements within the National
Coalition.
Notwithstanding this public dissent, and
in the light of all these important developments, it is likely that some
leaders on both sides are now convinced that there must be an end to the
bloodshed, suffering, and destruction. Al-Khatib might be one of them. After
all, and despite being attacked by his colleagues from the National Coalition,
al-Khatib appeared on an Arab television after the Cairo meeting and declared
that he is master of his own decision. He said that he stands by his statement
on talks with the regime. He also said that he was not pressured or enticed by
anyone or any country but his stand is based on his personal concern for the
lives and welfare of the Syrian people. When asked if he is acting in
contravention of consensus among the leaders of the Coalition, he replied, “the
Coalition members have agreed always to alleviate the pain and suffering of the
Syrian people.”
Indeed, al-Khatib’s new position might be
dictated by his realization that Syria could not and should not endure this
horror for another 22 months. It is also possible that he finally realized that
the support promised by the sponsors of the National Coalition may never
materialize. In a sense, his about-face regarding talks with the regime to
which he previously vowed not to talk is either an act of political maneuvering
or a cry of despair. Perhaps, now, the Syrians can trust each other and rely on
one another and put an end to an unwinnable civil war. Relying on the regional
and world powers has proven to be a costly participation in a proxy war that is
devastating the country and further pushing Syrians to the brink of sectarian
and ideological war that will certainly fragment the Syrian society and
destabilize the entire region.
_________________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University
of Iowa. He is the author of a number of books and articles. Opinion herein are
the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the
university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...