Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Rifts Appear as Syrian Opposition Struggles to Maintain Momentum

The Syrian opposition remains unsure of the way forward in the wake of brutal state oppression, but events like the murdering of 13-year-old Hamzah Ali Alkhateeb will ensure that the struggle will not end soon.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Two months into the uprisings that have shaken the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the outcome remains largely unclear. The Syrian government's repressive measures, complete with mass arrests, torture, and sizable military deployments, have severely dampen the movement but failed to extinguish the protests altogether.

Meanwhile, while a large-scale opposition meeting takes place in Istanbul, many analysts have noted worrying rifts in the anti-regime movement.

As the opposition tries to muster its support, the Syrian regime has continued its month-long crackdown on protestors.

The originating city of Dara'a remains under tight military control, with little or no access to food, water, electricity, and basic medical supplies. Troops remain posted in a variety of other protest areas.

Despite the government brutality, protestors have continued to demonstrate in the streets. As time has dragged on, though, growing rifts have emerged in the opposition movement, both between local Syrians and their international counterparts, and within the domestic opposition itself.

Joshua Landis, an expert on Syria and the proprietor of the blog Syria Comment, claims that "the opposition is divided over the proper role foreign governments should play in bringing down the Syrian regime. Many Syrians abroad believe that only foreign action – primarily sanctions as presently articulated – will destroy the Syrian government" while others favour an internal domestic solution instead.

Other divisions abound inside Syria itself, where different factions argue over timing, strategy, and the practicality of negotiating with the regime.

Many of these points of contention were present at a recent forum hosted by the Middle East Institute, which featured three figures with vastly different interpretations of the Syrian situation.

Ammar Abdulhamid, a prominent Syrian dissident based in Washington D.C., argued that the protestors in Syria "Don't want us to piggyback on their success, or style ourselves as the leaders of the revolution, but they want us to assume a leadership role… to formulate an alternative that can be endorsed by the protest movement inside and endorsed by the international community."

Abdulhamid called for greater U.S. involvement and international recognition for a Syrian transitional government, presumably guided by the expat Syrians coordinating with the protest movement.

Steven Heydemann, another panelist and an expert on Syria at the United States Institute of Peace, warned that greater involvement in the Syria situation would not suit U.S. interests at this time, arguing that "some fairly serious trigger" would be required to get Washington off the fence.

The greatest divisions, however, appear to centre around the means by which the opposition movement could end the Assad's regime grip on power. Heydemann opined that only cooperation and dialogue with the regime could move the country forward, cautioning that the "trial of Mubarak serves as significant disincentive for other dictators to accept an exit," in reference to the recent decision by Egyptian officials to bring ex-president Hosni Mubarak to stand trial for his crimes.

Abdulhamid vehemently disagreed, stating that "the idea that Assad can stay is… a destructive one." Abdulhamid compared the Assad regime to a "woolly mammoth", suffocating the state with its "dead weight".

The upcoming Istanbul meeting, relocated after Egypt denied the Syrian opposition permission to meet in Cairo, is meant to consolidate the disparate strains and produce a common narrative, and more importantly, to create a viable alternative to the status quo.

All parties agree that the creation of a shared set of guidelines, ideology, and strategy is imperative both to strengthen the Syrian resistance, and to win international backing, but the meeting itself is fraught with dissention.

Burhan Ghalioun, another prominent Syrian intellectual who has insisted that leadership of the resistance must come from the domestic Syrian youth, has boycotted the Istanbul meeting.

In a statement produced earlier this week, Ghalioun claimed that the meeting would be "a collection of many of those who want to benefit from and exploit the revolution to serve private agendas, including, unfortunately, foreign agendas."

At the other end of the spectrum, Farid Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria openly hoped that "this is an opportunity for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, to do something."

Ghadry has called for greater regional intervention in the Syrian situation, particularly from Israel, an idea with little popularity on the ground.

Though the U.S. has so far been unwilling to move beyond sanctions and warnings, the European Union on Wednesday voted to withdraw all aid to the Syrian state, and has suspended a number of ongoing and infrastructure projects, while calling for a U.N. Security Council resolution to condemn the Syrian crackdown.

Meanwhile, support for the Syrian regime continues to hold strong in some circles.

Hasan Nasrallah, secretary general of the pro-Syrian Lebanese party Hizballah, gave a televised address in which he urged "the Syrian people to maintain their regime of resistance, as well as to give way to the Syrian leadership to implement the required reforms and to choose the course of dialogue," calling on Lebanon to "reject any sanctions led by U.S. and the West asking Lebanon to abide by them against Syria, which is the most important goal of [Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey] Feltman's recent visit to Lebanon."

In the latest significant turn, video footage of deceased 13 year-old Hamzah Ali Alkhateeb elicited a furious response both internally and throughout the international community.

Alkhateeb was brought by his parents to an Apr. 29 demonstration, where he was detained with hundreds of other protestors. Video footage shows the boy's corpse – released to his parents last week – with several gunshot wounds, mutilated genitals, and other clear signs of torture.

Protests have increased significantly since the footage of the body was made public, as have reported casualties. The total body count has climbed well over 900 by the most conservative estimates, earning Syria the second highest death-per-capita ratio in Arab uprisings, coming a distant second to Libya.

Whether this event will be a sufficient "trigger" remains to be seen, but for all their differences, the many voices of Syria's opposition movement seem to agree on one thing: without some sense of a collectively agreed-upon political alternative to the current regime, the protests stand little chance of success.

Samer Araabi is a contributor to Right Web, Foreign Policy in Focus, and the Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share