Syria and the “Armed Gang”

When an official at the US embassy in Damascus was asked to comment on the Syrian government’s claims that “armed gangs” are behind the uprising that is taking place across the country, he told the BBC that “there is one big armed gang in this country, and it is named the Syrian government.  That’s the armed gang that is pillaging its own cities, that’s the armed gang that is striking terror into a lot of the hearts of these people who…just want to peacefully protest.”  This comment reflects the international frustration with the official story being put forward by the Syrian regime to justify its suppression of its own people, and its persistence in following this bloody course of action, blatantly disregarding all other considerations.  However this comment is also an indication that the time granted to the Syrian regime to implement reform is beginning to run out.

This frustration was also reflected in the position taken by the Turkish government, which had been one of the closest friends and allies of the al-Assad regime, and whose bilateral relations [with Syria] are hanging by a thin thread.  The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement announcing that “the bloody crackdown on civilians [has] cast doubt on the Syrian government’s determination and sincerity to solve the issue by peaceful means.”  Even Russia – which together with China continues to block the UN Security Council drafting a resolution against the Syrian regime – has begun to imply that it is prepared to change its stance.  Arab countries have also begun to exhibit uneasiness, and have made indirect references regarding their inability to remain silent.

Over the past five months of Syria’s popular uprising, official accounts have varied regarding the justification for suppressing the protesters and the storming of towns and cities.  These justifications have ranged from foreign conspiracies to [Islamist] extremists and [foreign] agents.   However the common denominator in these justifications was the presence of “armed gangs” who were opening fire upon and killing security forces, which necessitated the deployment of loyal army forces to suppress them.

The regime needed a story such as this to justify opening fire on the demonstrators who have so far been very careful only to use peaceful means to express their desire for freedom, regime change, and constitutional amendments, which are all legitimate demands. The most dangerous weapon sometimes carried by these protesters– as shown in the video clips and images posted by the activists – is wooden sticks.  Some of these demonstrators have shown rare courage by confronting army tanks empty-handed, and they have won the media battle as a result of this.  Meanwhile, the regime’s theories have collapsed one after another, because in the first place they did not rely upon any underlying logic or political rationale.

The latest bloody and persistent attack [by the regime forces] was on the city of Hama, which had remained practically liberated [from al-Assad control] for a number of weeks, with half-a-million man marches taking place every Friday [after prayers].  This attack has only served to raise questions about the regime’s thinking.  This surprising attack on Hama raises the following question in particular: is there anyone amongst the ruling elite in Syria who truly believes that it is possible to stay in power through massacres and bloodshed?   If what is being said in speeches and conferences about promised reform, the establishment of political parties, and the holding of free and fair elections is true, then why is the Syrian regime carrying on with this brutal and defiant campaign?

There is no other explanation for this other than that those who are making the decisions are fighting a very short-sighted and bloody battle for survival, and that they were not genuine in their response to the people’s demands for freedom and social justice, and their promises of reform.  This is for a very simple reason, namely that responding to such demands would ultimately mean the end of the regime, or at least would result in one wing of the regime turning against the other in order to satisfy the people’s demands, the most important of which is the repeal of the constitutional article relating to the Baathist party’s control of the state.

For those in power, this is nothing more than self-interest and a battle for survival.  Real reform would mean opening the door to other [political] trends in society to peacefully compete for power, as well as the introduction of new categories of political representatives who enjoy genuine legitimacy. Even if the regime accepted such reform, this would begin with investigations and accountability.  Of course, if this door were opened then many key figures in the regime would fall under suspicion.

Yes, it is primarily a battle of interest. But this is also a desperate battle that will end in defeat for the regime.  No matter how brutally and violently the regime suppresses the people, nobody can rule without a bare minimum of popular acceptance.  Continuing with this policy of suppression and violence is like digging yourself into a deeper hole.