As the West ramps up its engagement with Syrian opposition figures, the behavior of armed opposition groups inside the country increasingly resembles that of the Assad regime.
Samer Araabi, last updated: December 08, 2011
Inter Press Service
As the Syrian uprising enters its ninth month, it faces some of its most daunting challenges to date, despite the consolidation of near-unanimous international condemnation of the Syrian government.
Over the past two months, the Syrian National Council – having modelled itself as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people – has successfully lobbied a number of states and international organisations to enforce sanctions against the Syrian state.
The United States, European Union, Turkey, and most recently, the Arab League have levied deep and comprehensive sanctions aimed at crippling the efficacy of the Syrian regime.
On Tuesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Brad Sherman introduced the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act, which updates already-existing legislation to further penalise those providing weapons, mining equipment or technological support to Syria.
Opposition leaders in the Syrian National Council have welcomed the sanctions as a means to cut off the government's ability to maintain its massive security apparatus, but many observers have decried the sanctions for the damage they do to the Syrian people.
While the Economist estimates the direct effect of international sanctions to top 400 million dollars per month, sanctions have also played havoc with the Syrian economy itself, with skyrocketing prices for basic foodstuffs and a rapid devaluation of the Syrian pound.
Meanwhile, despite significant trade reductions from most of its neighbours, the Syrian state still enjoys robust economic relationships with Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran, as well as Russia and China, which have been largely unwilling to condemn the regime's violent crackdown. As a result, the true effect of international sanctions and their ability to dry up the Syrian state's coffers remain to be seen.
In addition to its existing sanctions policies, Washington has been steadily increasing its support for the opposition movement, while further condemning and restricting the Syrian government.
In the past week alone, the Barack Obama administration announced the return of Ambassador Robert Ford to Syria, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held direct meetings with elements of the Syrian opposition for the first time.
Clinton referred to the SNC as the "leading and legitimate representative of Syrians seeking a peaceful, democratic transition" and accused the regime of fanning sectarian violence.
Despite growing support, U.S. officials continue to express some doubt over the Syrian National Council's actual legitimacy and representation, questioning its efficacy in controlling events on the ground, and expressing concern over the apparently disproportionate representation of Islamist-affiliated members.
A recent report on Syria by the International Crisis Group considers many of the myriad intricacies that have come to define the Syrian uprising, from the caution of Syria's minority communities to the increasing entanglement of the Syrian opposition with regional and international actors, and the concomitant increase in violence that has resulted from it.
While acknowledging that the Syrian regime may well be on its last legs, it warns about the "increasing internationalization" of the conflict, which "may be impossible to stop" but almost certainly "would both distract from the protest movement's goals and diminish its chances for success".
The report details the significant interests of the U.S., Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in seeking to shape Syria's future foreign policy and demographic dynamics.
The acceptance of an international role in ending the conflict – once considered taboo by the overwhelming majority of Syrian protestors – is beginning to find greater acceptance in SNC circles.
In an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal, SNC President Burhan Ghalyoun also refused to explicitly state his position on foreign military intervention, a sharp about-face from his earlier pronouncements about the unacceptability of a Libya-like scenario in Syria under any circumstances.
Perhaps most notably, Ghalyoun recently declared that the SNC would formally sever ties with Iran and cut all funding and support for Hizballah and Hamas, partly in response to Hizballah's ostensible support for the Assad government, but likely also as a nod to Western observers who are keen to see such ties cut.
Ghalyoun also recently stated the SNC's commitment to the restoration of Syrian's occupied Golan Heights through "diplomatic means", by leveraging Syria's "special relationship with the Europeans and Western powers".
Many suspect that Ghalyoun's comments on these issues are primarily directed toward assuring the international community of the Syrian opposition's willingness to act in accordance with Western expectations.
Responding to Ghalyoun's statement, Bassam Haddad, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Mason University, asked, "Why should the strategies of a potentially democratic Syrian government be announced before the appropriate conditions for such a representative leadership are met?"
The Crisis Group report also warns of increased militarisation in the hands of the Syrian opposition, which has swiftly escalated from largely non-violent resistance to armed attacks and coordinated military manoeuvres in a manner of weeks.
Last week, defected military units known as the Free Syrian Army attacked an intelligence compound outside of Damascus, and armed opposition members appear to have gained footholds in parts of Idlib, Hama, and Homs.
Though members of the Syrian National Council have been quick to reassure international observers that the Free Syrian Army is reliable, coordinated, and responsible, the FSA remains shadowed in unknowns.
As the report explains, "the Free Syrian Army itself is more a wild card than a known entity," and posits that the group may grow to mimic the deadly Syrian state from which it was born, warning that "the Free Army's posting of forced confessions by captured security officers – who, in at least one instance, showed obvious signs of torture – stands as a first, cautionary tale."
In addition to the increasing importance of the Free Syrian Army, violence has scarred Syria in other, more localised ways. Several cities have witnessed widening spirals of violence, retribution, kidnappings and even beheadings, often by regime loyalists but increasingly at the hands of opposition members as well.
In spite of the regime's recent overtures for the entry of external observers and for dialogue with the opposition, violence at the hands of Syrian security forces continues to escalate, claiming the lives of over 100 protestors this week alone, and all signs point to the continuation of the conflict for some time to come.
In a surprising interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad appeared to take no responsibility for the 4,000 lives claimed by the Syrian uprising. In discussing the government's response to the protests, Assad claimed that "No government in the world kills its people, unless it's led by crazy person."
Though different actors will interpret those words in different ways, none of them bode well for the coming months in Syria.
Samer Araabi is a contributor to Inter Press Service and Right Web.
Ray Takeyh is an Iran-hawk who has recently migrated from the Council on Foreign Relations to the neoconservative Hudson Institute. Takeyh has been a vociferous critic of the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts aimed at peacefully resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute, framing a potential agreement as the “most advantageous path to nuclear arms” for Iran and arguing for a “revamped coercive strategy” against the country.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, notorious for reigning in the rights of workers in his home state, has staked out hawkish positions on foreign policy in advance of his expected run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. He has called for the United States to have a “strong presence” in the Middle East, has said he would not rule out U.S. “boots on the ground” in the fight against ISIS, and has said he would “absolutely” reject any nuclear deal with Iran if he becomes president. Walker has also spurred ridicule for saying the “most significant foreign policy decision” of his lifetime was Ronald Reagan’s decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981.
Stephen Hadley, a former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, has advocated a hardline towards Russia in the wake of the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Among his recommendations is for the CIA to covertly arm Ukrainian rebels. He said in November 2014: “If I were in my old job I would be thinking about lethal assistance—yes. But you know this is why you have a CIA, you know this is why you have covert action and I would be thinking—do we want to do it explicitly to send a message to Putin? Or do you want to do it covertly?”
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy recently published a letter signed by former officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations that has been framed as critical of the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran. However, the letter, which was also signed by prominent neoconservatives, has been described by one signatory as “very much in line with current U.S. policy.”
Gary Samore, a former adviser to the Obama administration who is now the president of the hawkish United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), recently signed onto an open letter published by the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy that several media outlets have framed as a warning from President Obama’s “ex-advisers” about the “Iran nuclear deal.” Samore, however, appears to disagree with this interpretation of the letter, saying in a recent CNN interview: “If you look through the substance of the letter, you'll see that the positions we take on the key unresolved issues are very much in line with current U.S. policy.”
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
June 30, 2015
A recent open letter by the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy about the Iran nuclear negotiations was signed by many figures who claim they support a nuclear deal with Iran, but whose past recommendations would have led to war with Iran.
June 29, 2015
The authors of an open letter published by the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy most likely knew that their statement was intended to set goals for the negotiations that are unattainable.
June 22, 2015
Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., has released a new book vilifying President Obama and his supposed treatment of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
June 20, 2015
Neocon stalwart Elliott Abrams prides himself on having a passion for democracy and human rights even as he has brazenly praised the tightening of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
June 18, 2015
Critics of the Iran nuclear negotiations fail to see that any potential agreement was always going to be a compromise and that what they claim are “concessions” are really the compromises necessary for a successful deal.
June 13, 2015
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Clifford May conveniently criticizes China for creating “facts on the ground” in the South China Sea while ignoring similar Israeli moves in the Occupied West Bank.
June 08, 2015
The neoconservative claim that George W. Bush “won” the Iraq War is ridiculous.