 |
by Dr. Abdulbaset Sieda
Exclusive for Al Waref
Following the death of the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad (10 June 2000) and his replacement by his son Bashar al-Assad in a manner contrary to what one would expect in a republic, except maybe North Korea, Syria witnessed an unprecedented popular movement aspiring for change and reform lead by independent academics of various backgrounds.
|
This mood also resulted in the spreading of discussion groups in many Syrian districts involving people who were saddened to see their country in an appalling and a backward state of affairs in various fields. These citizens were also well aware of the difficulties facing most of the Syrians who struggled to make it from one day to another as a result of economical difficulties, something that is contrary to expectations in a country such as Syria that is rich in resources. What made people optimistic and lead to their positive reaction to the calls for change and reform were enhanced by the promises made in the speeches of the new president, particularly his inauguration speech. This resulted in the emergence of unorganized opposition amongst the people of various backgrounds. The organized opposition that embodied a number of parties with religious, liberal, national and socialist tendencies did not possess the capability to take a leading role in this period of time. This of course was due to many reasons, including the government’s use of horror, incitement and corruption in order to influence the directions of existing parties in one way or another for decades. Nevertheless this period revived these organizations to a limited extent and some spectators believed the time for change has arrived. With the fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Al-Ferdaws Square, and with the American prediction that the times of dictatorships in the area have ended to be replaced by an era of freedom and democracy, the trend for change in Syria began to take a new shape both on popular and organizational levels. This tendency became even stronger following the assassination of the Lebanese former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri in Beirut (14 February 2005) when the Lebanese opposition united against the Syrian influence in all aspects of their country, something that lead to a system similar to that governing in Syria. The Syrian regime, however, succeeded to gradually putting its house in order taking advantage of the weakness and disunity of the organized opposition. The Syrian opposition failed to liberate itself from the mentality of misleading, something the very ideology of the Syrian state depended on. Indeed the apparent desire for reform that accompanied the appointment of the new president was part of this ideology prepared here by the group surrounding the president in order to give him some sort of legitimacy and gather support for him at the right time. As soon as the new president was on his feet, the arrests of the activists, regardless of their politics and backgrounds, began to spread. In order to reiterate its role in the Middle East the Syrian regime began a policy of coordination with the Iranian regime to launch a plan that would include suicide bombings, political assassinations and sabotaging unity efforts amongst the Palestinian organizations, a plan that aimed at destabilizing Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian movement. They put the plan into practice depending on their immense experience in dealing with terrorist organizations of all names and political brands. The Syrian regime even launched new terrorist organizations under imaginary names in order for them to be used at the right time for the right purpose. The difficulties faced by the Lebanese opposition and the animosities amongst the Palestinian groups are all partly or fully consequences of the strategies used by the Syrian regime. These strategies and adventures have nothing to do with the national interests of the Lebanese and the Palestinian peoples. They are merely for the interests of the Syrian regime itself and its Iranian ally, regardless of the tactics used to manipulate and abuse the feelings of naïve people. The recent Israeli attack against Gaza and what lead to it may prove this point. At the present time, the rulers of Syria feel victorious on many fronts, including in regard to the threat that was facing the system some years ago. The system was able to escape international isolation by France opening the door. It was able, with Turkish mediation, to start indirect, possibly direct, negotiations with Israel. It is now aspiring for normal relations with the USA under the new leadership with the intention to be given a free hand in Syria itself and to a certain extent in Lebanon. The thought-provoking issue here is that the Syrian people are totally prevented from the policy-making process by a regime that has confiscated their national desire by using its many oppressive instruments that have various means and can intervene in every affair that has something to do with the individual or the society. The ruling regime has seized the initiative for a Syrian national state capable of dealing with a society of multi-ethnic, multi-religious and of various political backgrounds, as is the case in Syria, and is ruling by hiding its face behind tremendous and outdated nationalistic slogans while using the sectarian coat to serve its intentions whenever needed by initiating irrational extremism of all sorts and names amongst the factions of the Syrian society. These tactics and tools have resulted in distrust and fear of an unknown future amongst the people and resulted in bias and disunity, thus making it easy for the regime to rule single-handedly without having a legitimate authority to have a monopoly on government, year after year. This has enabled a limited number of people to become extremely wealthy while the majority of the Syrian population lives in extreme poverty – something that is no doubt devastating for the future of Syria as a country. As for the Kurdish people, numbering more than three million in Syria, most of them dwell in the regions of upper Jazeera (belonging to the Hasaka District), Kobani and Afrin (belonging to Aleppo District) – regions that were attached to the newly formed Syrian state following World War One as agreed by the representatives of France and Turkey. An additional number of approximately 400,000 live in Damascus and a similar number in Aleppo – in addition to thousands of Kurds living in other regions of Syria, especially in and around large towns such as Rakka, Hama, Jesr al-Shighoor and Homs. The suffering of the Kurdish people in Syria is twofold. On one hand, they suffer from the policies and deeds of the same ruling regime, as the rest of the Syrian people. On the other hand, they suffer from the oppressive policies applied against a non-Arab ethnic group, something the regime uses to justify its isolationist nature. In other words, the Kurds are deprived of their national democratic rights, including cultural, social, organizational and political rights that are taken for granted in today’s civilized world. In addition they face a variety of biased and discriminatory means that put their very existence as Kurds in jeopardy, such as the one known as the “Arab belt” that the regime implied in an area 385 kilometers long and 5-10 kilometers wide along the border between Syria and Turkey in the Kurdish Jazeera region. This project which began operating in the early seventies included the confiscation of land owned legitimately by Kurdish families since the days of Ottoman Empire under the pretext of “Agricultural reform” and passing it to Arab owners brought in from other regions. Another example is the notorious so called “census” in the Jazeera region that dates back to 1962 that resulted in the withdrawal of the Syrian nationality from more than 120,000 Kurds in 1965, something that has lead to misery and continuous difficulties for the victims who today number more than 300,000. The authorities consider these people either as “foreigners” or as “unregistered” individuals. A further example is Article 49 of the Year 2008 that has practically stopped the process of selling and buying property in the Kurdish regions, with the state’s various departments and offices refusing to process any application by Kurdish citizens in the area in regard to buying or selling land, something that added to the problems of these regions that are already disadvantaged and suffer from high unemployment and poverty. Furthermore, Kurdish citizens are discriminated against when it comes to positions within the Public Service. Not only are high positions within the government closed in their faces, but senior positions within the police and the army are also off-limits for the Kurds. For instance, you will not find a single Kurdish minister in the government, nor is there any Kurdish organization or block represented in parliament. Even when it comes to scholarships and placing students in universities abroad, Kurdish students are discriminated against. All these mistreatments are in addition to the forceful arabization of names, including the names of villages, towns, shops and the newly born children. These policies and practices against Kurds not only contradict the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also become an obstacle in the face of Syrian national unity that should be based on mutual recognition and respect. Before ending this summary in regards to the repressive policies against the Kurdish people in Syria one must refer to the ongoing arrests of Kurdish citizens that have increased since Bashar al-Assad became president and the assassination cases that occur against Kurdish individuals. This oppressive policy and terrible deeds continue when the whole issue could have easily been solved under a government wanting to make Syrian national unity one of its priorities, a government that is willing to use logic and show respect for human rights. Let us now put this sad and complicated state of affairs aside and try to look for a logical solution for all the issues and problems, provided there are sincere and serious intentions.
What is needed here is a national project to address all the concerns and problems within Syrian society, a project based on the unity of the country and respect for the fundamental fabrics within the country, as a responsible political system would do. This project has to take into account that the Syrian society is made up of people belonging to multiple ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. To deny this reality is to mislead oneself and others, as has been the case for some decades. Therefore in order for this project to succeed there must be a national democratic dialogue with the participation of all Syrian groups regardless of their ethnicity, religion and politics, instead of being just for one group having a monopoly on power and misleading others by the use of clichés, rhetoric and empty slogans. The participants in this dialogue need to begin with common points and leave those they currently disagree on to later stages. The question here is of course: What would the current government think of such a dialogue? It is a legitimate question that needs to be answered right from the beginning. There is a popular Syrian proverb that says: “What is important is to eat the grapes, not to kill the warden.” In other words, theoretically the current governing state can also participate in this proposed dialogue with the aim to reach a general national consensus for the benefit of all. The prerequisite for such participation would be for the state to initiate the first steps and be sincere about them in order to prove its sincerity and readiness to reach a true reconciliation with the people. The first steps in this direction by the ruling government could include the release of political and conscience prisoners – taking steps to ensure that people will no longer be arrested for their political beliefs or the expression of their opinions, opening the way for the return of all Syrians in exile due to political reasons without any conditions, commitment to open and general dialogue for all sections of society, and in regard to all relevant issues without bias and discrimination, taking steps for transparent and democratic elections observed by relevant local and international organizations to take place, elections in regard to the constitution, political representation and various central, municipal and regional councils, etc. These steps could lead to a general national reconciliation. Leaving the theoretical argument aside, in reality however, the current regime that finds itself higher than the will of the Syrian people does not appear to be interested in compromise and reconciliation. It appears to be determined to continue with the belittlement of the people and the abuse of the country’s wealth, disregarding the desire of the Syrian people for democracy and refusing to take into account the interests of all the groups and regions in the country on an equal basis.
|
