In Syria, The Diplomatic Solution Lies in the Isolation of the Regime
It is taken for granted that the social networks, Internet and mobile phones have played a big part in the Arab Spring, as to a lesser or greater extent they have made possible the awareness-raising and mobilisation of societies that have reclaimed dignity and the opening of a new stage in their countries. How far do these media have a determining role?
The Arab Springs have been peaceful resistance movements in a highly repressive context, marked by the violence of the institutions (torture, persecution and a high number of civilian casualties). Bearing in mind the number of casualties, death, suffering and destruction, I think it even cynical to talk of a “Facebook Revolution”. Citizens are risking their lives in conditions that are not exactly virtual but rather very real, but it is clear that the speed with which the protests have spread from one country to another would not have been so without the social networks, in the most human sense of the term: emphasising the links between citizens of the region. The social networks have offered an outlet for protest, a necessary breeding ground, which already existed. In other words, the revolution in Tunisia did open the way, but there were already movements calling for a space for citizen organisation, expression and communication. The fact that freedom of expression and meeting has been prohibited in many regimes has given a broad margin to the use of virtual platforms. These have spread like wildfire, the strategies have improved and lessons have been learnt from the mistakes. For example, mechanisms of protection have been established, such as recording the crowds from behind to preserve the identity of the demonstrators or marking each image with information about the city, time and date for greater contextualization. However, the governments have also been learning. For this reason, repression has increased as the Arab Springs have advanced. Civilians are now considered as targets, as terrorists.
Indeed, in Syria, with access blocked to international journalists, these methods are the only way of reporting on what is happening within its borders. In this respect, can we talk of the emergence of a new communication strategy? Do you think this is useful for making what is going on in the country known?
To some extent, yes. A very intelligent use has been made of communication tools, showing enormous creativity through humour, graphic design, and the caricatures of Ali Ferzat. Moreover, the state media have been overwhelmed, rushed, with constant breaches in their narrative. The few reporters who have been able to enter the country have left transformed, troubled, and horrified. They had never seen such a thing and, without the firsthand sources in the field, the macabre actions of the Syrian regime could never have come to light. Citizens cannot be held responsible for the reliability of the sources when responsibility for the blockage lies with the government. I also find it incredible that in some so-called progressive media the Syrian issue has been treated falteringly, still believing that the world is separated into two blocs and Syria continues to be part of the side opposed to the United States and Israel. These dichotomies are dangerous and there are new forms of communication to throw light on them.
After months of hesitation by the international community over decisions on Syria, do you believe a diplomatic solution is possible for the Syrian conflict? Which factors should be considered?
I think the diplomatic solution lies in isolation. We cannot go from nothing to a military invasion or NATO bombings, as if all that is needed is a solution involving civilian suffering. There is broad scope for other measures. For example, we have not yet been able to agree a European consensus to expel the Syrian ambassadors from our capitals. It is true that we have withdrawn ambassadors in Syria, but this is because of the fear among embassy staff who have to leave the country amidst enormous insecurity. Now it is necessary to expel the Syrian ambassadors, who are the diplomatic arm of the regime: they have not distanced themselves from the official narrative, have justified its actions and denied its atrocities. They have also waged a campaign of interrogation in their headquarters of any Syrian citizen who goes there on administrative business or who has been identified as one of the demonstrators outside the embassy. This is happening in democratic countries, allowing Syrian tyranny to also have a space within our borders.
Although it may seem otherwise, the Syrian regime still needs international legitimacy. Losing it would mean the most absolute asphyxia. All state visits to Damascus have been magnified with official receptions, using them to give new breath to what is an inherently illegitimate government. If China or Russia can be pressured into isolating Syria, the fall of the regime would be a question of days. One of the options for civil society is to pressure its governments, joining campaigns such as Unite for Syria.
What must be passing through the mind of a leader at times like these? Does al-Assad really believe in the foreign conspiracy? Is he aware of the magnitude of the crisis?
Yesterday diverse e-mails came to light of the family buying luxury goods on the Internet. They are leading a normal life, especially al-Assad’s wife, who grew up in London. This gives the impression that the al-Assad clan live in an unreality, in self-pity, self-flagellation, bemoaning the foreign conspiracy. The rhetoric tends towards reductionism: they do not speak about specific people, armed groups, political groups… In Homs, the regime seeks to crush the population groups that show any kind of dissidence. Something similar is happening among the Israeli leaders and some members of Israeli society, who feel powerful and legitimate but at the same time pursued and cornered. It is dangerous that these kinds of individuals have access to arms.
The Arab League is being unusually active and belligerent. Why is that?
In 1982, Hafez al-Assad’s regime crushed an uprising in Hama resulting in 20,000 deaths. Despite the magnitude of the massacre, Hafez al-Assad has been remembered as an astute leader, who knew how to hold his punches, consider strategic factors and play the right cards. In contrast, Bashar al-Assad has laid bare a strategy without limits, reaching intolerable levels even for the Arab League.Different regimes have interceded for Syria, but few channels remain for sustaining al-Assad’s regime. At first, the people did not ask for the fall of the regime; perhaps all would have turned out well if more reforms had been offered. In a context in which citizens record and describe the massacre live, it is hard to look the other way. Therefore, to show a minimum rhetorical coherence with human rights, the Arab League has decided to sacrifice this government to ensure no interference in other fields.
It is surprising that countries like Saudi Arabia, which are not exactly guarantors of respect for human rights, are leading the regional opposition to the Syrian regime. What role do you give to strategic factors in the participation of the Arab League?
The geostrategic factor is crucial. Bahrain has a situation similar to the Syrian regime. However, its oil reserves make it a great ally for the West and effectively untouchable. Civil society in Bahrain is isolated, and no one will intercede on its behalf. And I do not think that Saudi Arabia has the legitimacy to judge questions of human rights. A country that disregards 50% of the population, in which women have very limited rights… Despite all these elements, even these governments have been scandalised by the brutality of the regime.
One of the elements holding back the international community is the fragmentation of the opposition both abroad and within the country. Do you see a united and homogenous opposition in the near future?
The sanctions and embargos have proven useless with a regime with many resources, as it works like a mafia. All the people will die of hunger before them. The problem is that Western inaction emerges because they do not see what can come next, what the alternative is or who can intercede. Neither do I believe we must be so naïve as to think that the international community is especially concerned about the future and freedom in Syria, but it is true that if there were a well-articulated alternative the course of events would be different. To date, the Syrian National Council has not meant a coherent movement of opposition, given that its activity has been marked by internal confrontations and hesitation. But this is logical given that the 40 years of repression have not allowed either a strong civil society or a consolidated democratic culture. An opposition is needed that represents the feeling on the streets, which knows how to pressure in the right direction. However, the current situation of asphyxia by the government makes the construction of a solid alternative especially difficult.
There have been more than 8,000 deaths after one year since the start of the revolution. Do you think they justify the establishment of humanitarian corridors or an air exclusion zone? Although you may not consider it desirable, would a military intervention be justified?
I have not taken a stance on military intervention, because it seems to me very hard to decide this from the coldness of distance when those who will be subjected to the bombing are the civilians in Syria. In such a heavily populated place, I think military intervention should be ruled out to give way to the implementation of mechanisms that protect civilians or the establishment of air exclusion zones. In a region marked by foreign interventions and destruction, this is the most plausible option.
There has also been talk of arming the resistance. On the one hand, it seems fitting to offer mechanisms of protection to members of the army who desert given the death machine of the government army, but at the same time I find it hard to see how the Syrian Free Army would resist the government forces and under what conditions.
