A
recent lecture in London highlighted the perils of any sort of foreign
intervention, military or even humanitarian, in the meat-grinder of current day
Syria. With the violence and bloodshed mounting and spilling over into Lebanon,
with the flood of refugees pouring into Turkey and Jordan the pressure is
increasing to ‘do something.’ But what, exactly? What assistance? To whom
should it go? How should it be delivered? And, most important of all, what
would be the consequences of any external assistance?
One
of the biggest issues dividing the Syrian opposition is this question of
external assistance. Is it good, bad, or even necessary? To briefly summarize
the current line-up: Russia and Iran are actively supporting the regime of
Bashar al-Assad. The opposition, meanwhile, receives overt support from Qatar
and Saudi Arabia. Other countries like Turkey are supporting the opposition,
but so far have stopped short of providing heavy weapons or soldiers.
The
United States, for its part, still bears the scars from its lethal aid to the mujahideen fighting the Russians in
Afghanistan in the 1980s. The U.S. is also concerned about the alleged stockpiles of
chemical weapons held by the Syrian regime falling into the hands of jihadist elements that have infiltrated
the Syrian opposition forces.
Your new best friends in Syria? |
And
then there are people like Dr. Haitham Manna, the Paris-based spokesman for an
opposition group called the National Committee for Democratic Change who pleaded
with an audience at the London School of Economics to work for a non-violent
solution that avoided taking any
external assistance. According to Dr. Manna any external assistance would
merely distort what started as a non-violent anti-regime protest against the
arrest of 15 school children in Dar’a in March 2011. He maintains that such external assistance would merely make the country
hostage to people supplying the assistance. He said the original goal of
protestors was to create a non-sectarian, democratic Syria, and that it is
naïve to think that this could be accomplished merely by changing its political
alliances or resorting to violence.
Dr. Haitham Manna |
In
an earlier interview with Jadaliyya he
said Syria “will become prisoners to international aid and those non-democratic
forces in the Gulf States who wish that there will be a fiscal crisis.” He was
referring to the support that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have given to the
opposition forces in Syria. He also questioned how much would be gained in the
long term by swapping Russian support for American support.
This
position puts him at squarely odds with other opposition groups, namely the
Syrian National Council, that want ‘friendly’ countries to mount a Libyan-style
attack and force a military solution to the civil war. The situation is further
complicated by sectarian divisions among the regime’s opponents. Some want a
bloody Sunni-Alawite confrontation, some want a jihadist Islamic state, others simply want a democratic state
controlled by and for Syrians.
Dr.
Manna kept stressing the point that Syria is not Libya, and that it has several
different ethnic and religious groups. “Any solution that does not include all
the different groups in Syria is bound to fail,” he told the largely sceptical
audience.
“If
we take Arab nationalism too far we marginalize the non-Arabs such as the Kurds
and others. If we take Islamic ideology too far then we do away with
approximately 40% of the people. We have no right to do any of this,” he said
in the Jadaliyya interview.
The
tone of the questions from the audience in London indicated that Dr. Manna’s
plea for non-violence was falling on rocky ground; that it was too late to wind
the clock back to the days of peaceful demonstrations of unarmed civilians.
“What
do you expect me to do when someone comes to my home with a gun and threatens
me and my family? Meekly give in?” one person asked bitterly. Others pointed
out that Dr. Manna is based in Paris and questioned his right to give advice to
people fighting for their lives every day.
He
bravely responded by noting that his own brother was killed by the regime and poignantly
asked the questioners “How has the situation improved since we began fighting?”
He has a point, but at this stage not too many people are listening.
So
what is the end-game to the bloody stalemate in Syria? The opposition forces do
not seem to have the heavy weapons required to defeat the well-armed forces of
the regime, and the regime seems incapable of finishing off the rebels. Some
say there is no solution as long as Bashar al-Assad and his ruling clique
remain in power or even in the country. Others, like Dr.Manna, insist that any
solution ignoring the legitimate fears of the minority Alawite regime and its
supporters would be short-lived.
‘Compromise’
is not a frequently used word in the Middle East. But just possibly in this
situation a compromise worked out by the Syrian people themselves and supported
by the contending external forces may be the only way to keep the country from
splitting into bitterly opposed mini-states established on ethnic and religious
grounds. Wildly optimistic? Perhaps, but it is difficult to see any other
result that doesn’t increase the instability of an already unstable region.