The Syrian Rebellion One Year On

March 21, 2012

One year after the crisis in Syria started the UN Security Council today issued a non-binding Presidential Statement(scroll down) on Syria supporting Kofi Annan's mission there. It will have little effect.

The danger of civil war in Syria is for now over. The terrorists who came in via Lebanon and have been killing people in Syria since April last year are unable to hold any ground.

While Human Rights Watch falsely claims that the protests where "overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011" it now at least acknowledges the brutality of the armed activists:

Armed opposition elements have carried out serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today in a public letter to the Syrian National Council (SNC) and other leading Syrian opposition groups. Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians.

The only ability the terrorists have left is to commit random acts of terrorism like exploding bombs or assassinating people. While such terrorism is certainly a danger it alone can not bring down the Syrian state and its government. But it is alienating the people that earlier took part in peaceful protests against the regime.

Meanwhile the so called international community is not willing to support the rebellion and even Turkey is urged to pull back from its anti-Syrian policies:

Turkey seems to be the only country fully focused and devoted to toppling al-Assad’s regime. Talks of establishing a buffer zone or a safe haven to protect fleeing Syrians and leading the international community in imposing more pressure are part of this policy. Such interventionist policies would not only break the image Turkey has built in the region but are also inconsistent with its general foreign policy principles, the main pillar of which is peace.

Thus Turkey had better revise its policy toward its southern neighbor …

Only the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which leads the opposition, is still uncompromising and in this interview its leader Mohammed Riad Al-Shaqfa still calls for more arms. He also admits that the opposition is financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This Dutch TV interview (in English) with the spokesperson of the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dr. Jihad Makdissi shows the regime as much more realistic and more open to compromises.

The biggest problem Syria will have in the next months are the 200,000 internally displaced and the economic pressure from sanctions. Like with all sanctions it will be difficult to get these lifted. But with Iraq open to Syrian trade and the Turkish position likely to change the sanctions, as well as the terrorists, will not be able to endanger the regime.

Posted by b on March 21, 2012 at 16:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments

“Terrorists.”
You’re such an asshole.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 21 2012 16:46 utc | 1

Landis

The opposition will have to rebuild itself to be more Islamic, militant and sectarian in order to take on the Assad regime. Opposition leaders on the ground, those who are actually fighting the regime, have already become more militant and Islamized. If the SNC doesn’t scramble to catch up, it will become irrelevant. I suspect that the upcoming opposition meeting in Turkey this Thursday and Friday (March 22-23) will reflect some of that shift. The recent high level defections within the the Syrian National Council suggest the opposition is responding to these pressures and new demands. The SNC is going through a period of soul searching and transformation in response to the government’s classic “clear and hold” operations carried out in Sednaya, Homs and Idlib.

It’s Asad’s intransigence that has radicalized the opposition.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 21 2012 16:54 utc | 2

slothrop,
I rarely comment on here but you really should stick to commenting on what you know about. This “revolution” was hijacked from day one. If you had any knowledge of the situation you would know that the GCC was funneling arms into Syria from Lebanon from almost day one and their support has been mostly directed at the Brotherhood. It is is typical of the leaders of the GCC who are so used to buying whatever they want to rush in and try and force a situation to their benefit in so rash and stupid a manner that it simultaneously alienated the true Syrian opposition activists (is those that actually lisked life and liberty by opposing from within Syria rather than sniping from the comfort of Europe and America) and ruined the chances of actually getting changes in Syria. And yeah, if you start placing car bombs in populated areas you are a terrorist.

Posted by: Abusujjok | Mar 21 2012 17:16 utc | 3

I agree with the general tone of your assessment of the status of the ‘rebellion’ in Syria, b. The Hurriyet article was a good catch too. It captures the conflicted position of Turkey, the NATO member, beautifully. Turkey’s apparent support for NATO’s ‘rebels’ never made any sense to me. I suspect it was written with the sole intention of ‘sending a message’ to NATO.
I couldn’t help noticing that Russia’s reaction to Kofi’s visit to Syria was to use his vacuous rhetoric as an excuse to send anti-terror boots-on-the-ground to Syria to keep and eye on … the antics and skulduggery of Kofi’s Coalition of Liars.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 21 2012 17:17 utc | 4

Mmmmmm can’t help but wonder what the U.S. Govt’s position would be if, say, Iran funneled arms to OWS, and they killed american civilians to note their disapproval of America’s leadership?
Thanks for the links b.

Posted by: ben | Mar 21 2012 18:23 utc | 5

In case anyone missed this from the last post, i think this is the best analysis done on this crisis;
http://www.scribd.com/Silendo/d/82131328-The-Lebanonization-of-Syria

Posted by: ana souri | Mar 21 2012 18:28 utc | 6

I finally read the long post by Parviziyi on the open thread, here. (re. syria)
http://tinyurl.com/76wbr6h
What he says is credible, but begs the question of who are the rebels?
He makes a big deal about the “uneducated” – that is the lower class, the poor, those who have no clout, no role, earn nothing or little…. No definition or description.
They are, one guesses, ppl who are left out of the hyper regulated, top-down, economic circuit in Syria and were spurred by the Arab Spring, correctly reckoning they could count on outside support, which has been the case.
What if the semi-starving and unemployed in the US rose up and started shooting, bombing, corralling quarters, with far-off but consequent, steady, guaranteed support from anti-US forces, imagine, Russia, China, Iran, all very powerful, claiming stridently that decent, worthy, US citizens are being imprisoned arbitrarily, put to death, soft-tortured, sexually abused, kicked out of their homes, deprived economically, not allowed free speech and democratic votes, etc.?
And what if the French homeless and ‘underclass’ hanging on by the skin of their teeth, decided to rise up with the support of their Chinese, Indian, Venezuelan, Bolivian, brothers and sisters?
Heh.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 21 2012 19:21 utc | 7

If one assumes that this is about a Saudi/Sunni/Muslim-Brotherhood takeover, the MB (muslim brotherhood) needs the support of the syrian Sunni Majority. So far, Syrian Society seems to have mostly their own “syrian” identity over their confessional or religious identity. So what they’ll try to do is to turn this into a religious conflict, because if the separating line is not “syrian” vs. “foreigners” but more like “sunni” vs “alawite”, suddenly the MB and the populations majority are on the “same side”.
Now take a look at Iraq. All we’ve been hearing from Iraq over the last ten years is that there’s a heap of suicide bombings, carbombs and killed civilians every week or so. No one knows exactly what that’s about and everyone’s blaming everyone.
Take that as a role model for what will be happening in Syria: Assasinations, bombs etc., both sides blaming each other. Their goal will be to lead Sunnis to the belief, that they are being “terrorized” by Alawite-Shiite Government Elite. So in a way, for the opposition it’s good to cause as much civilian deathtoll as they can, as long as it’s done in a way so no one knows exactly who has done it.
A major military operation would be easily recognized as a government operation, since opposition doesn’t have the means to do such a thing. But a carbomb on a marketplace? Hell, everyone could have done that. Maybe, if the explosion is “big” enough it might be more easily ascribed to government, because seemingly “only Assads troops could do it in such a professional way” (although MB, Al-Quaida and whatever battle-worn mercenaries are operating in syria are well trained and supported by Sunni countries).
So this is what I expect. There is not much that Assad can do about that. I guess he’ll have to sit and wait if there will be a major war on Iran this year. Should summer go by without, the Assad government may try to go on with their way of the last decade or so. Should there be a war cards are freshly dealt to everyone.
It’s not so much the “US” or Nato pushing for regime change. I think it’s more The gulf states in a regional competition for dominance that are trying to expand their influence before the age of imminent ressource scarcity starts.

Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 21 2012 20:39 utc | 8

“The only ability the terrorists have left is to commit random acts of terrorism like exploding bombs or assassinating people. While such terrorism is certainly a danger it alone can not bring down the Syrian state and its government. ”
I don’t know where you get this idea. Have you heard of a country called Iraq, where a minority sect staged an insurgency and was able to kick out a superpower from its soil? A well-run insurgency can defeat a military of far superior power. It remains to be seen if the Syrian rebels can run a competent insurgency, but the above conclusion is at best premature.

Posted by: A V | Mar 21 2012 21:13 utc | 9

Have you heard of a country called Iraq, where a minority sect staged an insurgency and was able to kick out a superpower from its soil?
huh? are we talking about the same war?

Posted by: annie | Mar 21 2012 21:31 utc | 10

@ AV

Have you heard of a country called Iraq, where a minority sect staged an insurgency and was able to kick out a superpower from its soil?

A valid comparison. Moving even further into it however the Iraqi State suffered a 10 times more vicious insurgency than Syria and yet the state institutions survived. Lets not forget the Syrian state is not some foreign invader, it is not operating on the other side of the world in places and cultures it doesn’t understand. People rally to fighting a foreign power in their country much more than they would rally against their own government.
Daily Car bombings and Suicide bombings hit Baghdad and yet the government perserved through it. No reason to think 4 car bombings in a month is going to bring the Syrian state to its knees. It will likely turn the victim cities of Aleppo and Damascus even more against the FSA.
Also on the well-run insurgency idea, I think its clear that the Syrian rebels are struggling to run a competent insurgency, nevermind a well-run one. Their political leadership is divided, they cannot hold any territory/cities, they need infusions of weapons and soldiers from Libya, Saudi, Qatar and Jordan, their military commander is not even inside the country. I don’t see the Syrian regime anytime soon.

Posted by: Colm O’ Toole | Mar 21 2012 21:50 utc | 11

I am drawing a parallel between situations in Syria and in Iraq. The Iraq Sunni fighters showed that an insurgency can succeed in defeating an army w/ superior firepower. There’s no reason to believe that this is not a plausible outcome in Syria, with insurgents defeating a much better equipped armed forces. Obviously there are differences between the two situations as no parallel situations are identical, but I would not write the obituary of the Syrian resistance to the Assad rule yet.

Posted by: A V | Mar 21 2012 21:52 utc | 12

What’s different in Syria than in Iraq is that in Syria there’s a majority of turkish-origin Sunni population. Also, who knows what the bombs in Iraq were aiming at? Might be gang conflicts or real religious terror-warfare, acts of revenge. What power does the iraqi government in fact have – is it worth to be called a nationwide government at all?
For Syria: the plan to do this “quick and dirty” the libyan way has obviously failed. But follow the official propaganda and everyone’s making clear that there will be no more peace in Syria until MB has taken over. So I personally assume that if you just keep on terrorizing the whole country, religious tensions will inevitably rise. The sunni part of the current government will be encouraged to take over the leading role alongside the MB in a future Syria and moreover given the perspective to participate on the income of then-to-be-lifted sanctions.
So, keep this going for another year or two, impose further sanctions and have the country ruined and in disorder and sooner or later syrian people will just be sick and tired and welcome everyone who’s offering a perspective of peace and calm.
The key point here is demographics. 70% sunni population who might potentially agree to a Saudi or MB-Influence as long as overall prosperity might rise.
My approach of making sense of what I read about Syria 😉

Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 21 2012 22:35 utc | 13

The advantage that both Iraqi and Syrian guerrillas have is that they operate from bases in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates (Kuwait not least.) This is what gives them their resilience despite the lack of enthusiasm of the populations amongst whom they move and whom they terrorise.
In other words this is not, in either Iraq or Syria, a mass based guerrilla resistance movement but a well financed, highly trained, very well supplied operation with support of every kind from the imperial powers; support which runs from the supply of specialists, sich as snipers, to the mobilising of diplomats for the imposition of financial and commercial sanctions. This means that while it lacks the critical element of popular support it can do very well without it and trust to its ability to intimidate a population, by no means enthusiastic in its support of the status quo, into stepping aside while it conquers power.
The real vulnerability of the salafist/imperialists is that, pushed to the limit, its opponents have no reason not to answer in kind by spreading revolutionary propaganda among the subject populations and helots upon whose backs the Emirs ride. Any critique of “dictatorial” government that can be aimed at Assad can be aimed, with even greater justification, at the Sauds, the Gulf emirs, the Yemeni puppet, Jordan, Morocco et al.
The sooner that this is done and the royal tyrants are forced on to the back foot, to defend themselves, the sooner the lunatic prospect of extending wars to Syria and Iran will be ended. Much of the impetus for war comes from the thugs running Saudi Arabia, whose real fear is of the Arab people, whose wealth they have stolen, and the muslim world whose trust they betray by their alliance with the Zionists and their US sponsor.

Posted by: bevin | Mar 21 2012 22:55 utc | 14

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 21 2012 23:05 utc | 15

according to our imaginative slothrop, steward of all humanitarian interventions, the rural poor are the base of a guerilla insurgency in Syria; while western media emphasize the role of the urban bourgeoisie; wow, it’s a miracle Assad is still in power!

Posted by: claudio | Mar 21 2012 23:24 utc | 16

I suppose it would be ironic, if most of the posters here weren’t stupid or vapid journeyman stewards of the USuk thing, that defense of the regime is basically a defense of the urban Syrian, largely Sunni, bourgeoisie against the rural poor ( terrorists!)
No contradiction here, I guess. More Terror = more religious tension and separation = increasing probability of the current regime splitting up and the secular forces losing power. That’s the goal now that the “no-fly zone” won’t take place. Just as you say.

Posted by: peter radiator | Mar 21 2012 23:36 utc | 17

Assad Jr. is a sort of tragic figure. Probably, his impulse was to reform. But the network and patronage wouldn’t permit it. the intransigence of the elites made the situation much worse, and much more sectarian, and much more “terroristic.”
This is my take away from angryarab, landis, fisk, rosen, etc.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 21 2012 23:43 utc | 18

This “revolution” was hijacked from day one
And ye, over and over and over again, we hear from independent journalists that the insurgency is radically fractured.
When you’re all-in on the USuk thing, you have to commit yourself to vast generalizations, otherwise you’d go mad.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 21 2012 23:48 utc | 19

sectarianism comes mostly from abroad, according to most analysts: the MB counts only in the SNC, and jihadis come from Lybia, Iraq, Lebanon, etc and are financed mostly by Qatar and Saudi Arabia
anyhow, an agreement on reforms has been made with the internal opposition and on May 7th non-sectarian elections will be held; why aren’t you happy, slothrop?

Posted by: claudio | Mar 21 2012 23:53 utc | 20

This is my take on what it was, how it is, and how it will go.
The Arab Spring 2011, Syrian lower class demonstrate for democratic reform and better economy. “The West”, USA & Israel, France, UK, Quatar and Saudi Arabia co-operate on using the momentum of The Arab Spring to impose a regime change in Syria, by creating a violent rebellion to make UN call NATO to do a “humanitarian intervention” and kill Assad. Assad had to die, because the methods used by The West, that would come up during a ICC trial would not be flattering. Media-warfare, supplying weapons to terrorists and blowing up car-bombs, deploying covert agents illegaly, the west would look very bad.
Now, the rebel groups have lost the media-war, the western audience, including politicians, have been exposed to enough bad information on the rebels that, they no longer support an intervention. The rebels are already complaining to western media, “We need help now, we have little weapons, and we are very few fighters”. The original protestors have largely gotten what they demonstrated for, with the new costitution, and the upcoming election may 7,
After the may 7. election, the Assad government will be re-elected, that will be the turningpoint in the western campaign. The West, with Hillary Clinton in the lead, can no longer justify imposing a revolution on a democratically elected administration, after the election.
When the motivation for the fight is gone, and this we can see already, the fighting will stop. The carbombings last week were mere deathcramps of the revolution. Things will stabilize fairly quickly, and since there is very little sectarian divisions in Syria, and it’s only been a year, the reconsciliation will be fairly smooth, at least nothing like Iraq.

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 22 2012 0:20 utc | 21

Pretty simple, I would suggest: the moment that Al-Qaeda started praising the Syrian uprising and started sending their terrorists into Syria to “assist” is the moment that the rebellion started running out of legs.
After all, who in “the West” wants to find themselves fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda, or even supporting the same leadership that the arch-terrorists are supporting?

Posted by: Johnboy | Mar 22 2012 2:03 utc | 22

Guess Hillary Clinton finding herself on the same side as Al-Queda in this conflict was a good cue to consider whether to invest more in this botched undemocratic revolution. Unless she isn’t just .. a bit Sarah Palin .. but rather a fully-fledged conspiring misantrop. This is a good lesson to the west that the goal doesn’t always justify the unholy means.
As the wholly Quran says, “Don’t enter thru the back-door”. (Meaning something like “Be honest and direct, not sneaky in your strategy”) (or maybe it means; “be straight, don’t be gay”)

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 22 2012 3:14 utc | 23

..especially when the goal is as unholy as the means.

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 22 2012 3:32 utc | 24

re 12
The Iraq Sunni fighters showed that an insurgency can succeed in defeating an army w/ superior firepower.
That is a basic misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq. The Sunni revolt was defeated, and remains defeated. The one who got the US out was the Shi’a PM, Maliki, through a very clever resistance to Bush’s demands.
The present bombings in Iraq, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the Sunni revolt, but are external Sunni fighters, fighting the war against Shi’ism, funded from Saudi and the Gulf, much like Qatari support for the Libyan revolt, and Saudi/Qatari arming of the revolt against Asad. You can see it, in that a lot of the bombings take place in the south of Iraq.
The local Sunnis remain downbeat.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 22 2012 6:51 utc | 25

Written about a year late … Islamists seek influence in Syria uprising

The gunmen in eastern Syria, wielding grenade launchers and assault rifles, announced on the Internet they were forming the “God is Great’’ Brigade and joining the country’s rebellion. They swore allegiance to the Free Syrian Army and vowed to topple President Bashar Assad.
But unlike many other rebel bands, they wrapped their proclamation in hard-line Islamic language, declaring their fight to be a “jihad,’’ or holy war, and urging others to do the same.
“To our fellow revolutionaries, don’t be afraid to declare jihad in the path of God. Seek victory from the One God. God is the greatest champion,’’ the brigade’s spokesman said in the January video. “Instead of fighting for a faction, fight for your nation, and instead of fighting for your nation, fight for God.’’
As Syria’s uprising evolves into an armed insurgency, parts of the movement are taking on overt religious overtones. Islamic movements in and out of the country are vying to gain influence over the revolt in hopes of gathering power if Assad falls.
…
An Islamic militant group, the Al-Nusra Front, on Tuesday claimed responsibility for a double suicide bombing that killed 27 people in Damascus over the weekend. The group appears to be a front for al-Qaida’s Iraq branch, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

Posted by: b | Mar 22 2012 7:09 utc | 26

I am not so sure that this matter is done with
I don’t see Turkey’s position as changed
Just paused for recalibration
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2012/03/un-bluffs-till-turkey-gets-cards-right.html

Posted by: Penny | Mar 22 2012 14:41 utc | 27

@26 All these appeals to the Deity. That One intelligent being Who can neither confirm nor deny what is said of Him.
Who, if He’s so damn all powerful, doesn’t need jihadis to assert his right.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 22 2012 14:50 utc | 28

thinking about motives for a minute… geologic motives, so they’re not gonna go away…
syria has all that euphrates water dammed up about 400 miles northeast of israel… at least bibi has controlled himself enough, this time, to avoid making rash remarks about the imminent arrival of syrian water… dumb as an ox, and arrogant with it…
then there’s oil pipelines from the persian gulf and iraq that would need to go through syria to israeli, lebanese or syrian oil ports…
lebanon’s no problem… bibi’s already written lebanon off (dumb as an ox), but he needs a little help with syria…

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 22 2012 16:11 utc | 29

in my most paranoid moments, i wonder if the “Arab Spring” phenomenon was orchestrated to lead up to a climax in syria.

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 22 2012 16:14 utc | 30

israel’s got this poker chip they could play with syria… the goloan heights… but maybe “heights” is the important word, here… if israel is worried about global warming and sea level rise.
or maybe the syrians are thinking, “fuck you and the zionist horse you rode in on… we’ll eventually get our land back, and we wont have to make any deals with you assholes.”
who knows?

Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 22 2012 16:55 utc | 31

thank you alexno #25.
The one who got the US out was the Shi’a PM, Maliki, through a very clever resistance to Bush’s demands.
with a little help from sadr. if the sunni resistance had been responsible for ‘kicking out’ the US, they would be running the country. they aren’t.
the current attacks in iraq could very well be a result of stay behind operatives at the behest of the empire.

Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2012 18:02 utc | 32

I agree with commenter “Colm O’Toole” at #11 and one thing I’d like to add to it is there’s plentiful evidence that weapons and ammunition are pretty expensive and not easy to come by for the Syrian rebels. Light weapons like rifles are far more expensive and harder to get than in (e.g.) Iraq. Medium or heavy weaponry are almost totally absent at any price. “Alexander” at #21 already mentioned that the Syrian rebels are saying to the Western reporters “We need help now, we have little weapons.” Here are some recent news reports that include details about the present scarcity of weapons among the rebels:
12 Mar 2012: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2012/03/12/inside-idlib-assad-crackdown-grows-ferocity
14 Mar 2012: AP: http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-lack-guns-money-key-defeats-175952483.html
18 Mar 2012: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-weapons-20120318,0,3916276,full.story
20 Mar 2012: AP: http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-outgunned-struggling-supplies-205645118.html
Alexander at #21 (also ‘b’) gives an overall optimistic forecast for Syria which I think has good probability of turning out true. But I also think it’s inevitable that low-grade random acts of terrorism will linger on. This will be politically self-destructive or political insanity for the Syrian Opposition as a whole. The historian|journalist Patrick Seale said on 20 Mar 2012: “The long campaign of terror against Hafez al-Assad from 1976 to 1982 was political insanity. By defeating it, Hafez won himself nearly two more decades of rule. Similarly, the arming of the Opposition against Bashar al-Assad seems not to have advanced the Opposition’s cause.”
Over the past year the Assad regime has made serious, politically popular, and good and liberal changes to basic political institutions, including a new Constitution, a new Political Parties Law, a new Elections Law, a new Information Media Law, a new law liberally regulating organized public protests, and repeal of the “Emergency Law”. But the regime has made NO concessions at all to true Islamists: Under the new Constitution, Islamic political parties remain illegal. So true Islamists can see themselves as having no political alternative to violence. Here’s Bashar Assad on 13 Dec 2011 ( http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/13-12-2011/119945-bashar_assad-0/ ): “No movement that acts under religious slogans and aims to split the Syrian society can hope for legalization. This goes for the Muslim Brotherhood too. This organization can not be legalized judging upon their ideology. It does not mean, though, that we cut those people from the opportunity to participate in the peaceful life of the country. We offer them to establish their own political party which would be based on secular principles so that the party could compete for seats in parliament.” Happily for Syria, most Syrians agree with that. But there’s some minority of righteous Islamists who will not agree, and it is not necessarily insane for them to use violence to keep their cause from being forgotten.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Mar 22 2012 18:06 utc | 33

sloprot,
are you shilling for AIPAC? assad’s regime hasnt fallen because there is still quite alot of support for him internally- whether the likud likes it or not.
the civil war threat is not over by a long shot. it will not morph into a new form but will not end by any means. UN is minimal at covert ops level

Posted by: Mercs for Hire | Mar 22 2012 21:15 utc | 34

‘b’ gave some links on the foreign policy of Turkey w.r.t. Syria. Here are some more that I’ve made a note of over the past few months. What these links show is that ALL the opposition parties in Turkey are firmly opposed to the Turksih government’s pushy policy against Syria. They want to leave Syria’s affairs to be decided wholly by the Syrians. What this means in turn is that the Turkish government doesn’t have the political power within Turkey to do any foreign interference in Syria. It couldn’t act abroad without more consensus at home to do it, or else at the least it couldn’t do it without the political cover of being a part of a large coalition of foreign countries.
Note: The governing party in Turkey is the AKP. The largest opposition party is the CHP, the Republican People’s Party. The next largest opposition party is the MPH, the National Movement Party.
18 Mar 2012. The chairman of the Turkish Republican People’s Party (CHP), Kemal Kilicdaroglu, strongly criticized the stances of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan against Syria, announcing the Turkish opposition’s determination to oppose these serious policies. He stressed the Turks’ rejection of interfering in Syria’s affairs, adding that the West avoids interfering in Syria and pushes Turkey into this dangerous adventure. He said the Syrian and Turkish people are brothers, stressing that “We want to live side by side in peace”. He called upon all sides to reconsider the whole developments in the situation in Syria and counter the policies which don’t serve the interests of the Turkish people. http://sana.sy/eng/22/2012/03/19/407042.htm
21 Mar 2012. The CHP will host a meeting of the Socialist International’s Special Committee on the Arab World on March 23-24 in Istanbul, to discuss social-democratic approaches to the transformation process in the region, especially Syria. Representatives of social-democratic parties from many countries will participate. CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu said that the planned meeting had annoyed prime minister Erdoğan because in it “the truth” about the situation in Syria would be discussed. Erdogan had said: “They will be holding a meeting to defend the brutality in Syria and a regime that has so far killed nearly 10,000 of our brothers. In this way, they claim, they will be looking for a solution for Syria.” http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/govt-slams-chp-meet-on-arab-spring.aspx?pageID=238&nID=16594&NewsCatID=338
23 Feb 2012. The head of the CHP, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, agreed with the need for democratic reform in Syria, but cast doubt on whether the toppling of dictators brings democracy to Arab nations. “We see the outcome is almost the opposite of what was expected [in Arab nations]. They spoke about democracy, but more oppressive administrations are coming to power. People are worried whether the global playmakers are really on the side of human rights,” he said. “The Arab League, made up of countries with no democracy, wants democracy in a certain country. That’s not credible,” he said, stressing that the international community had no clear strategy for post-Assad Syria. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/chp-leader-opposes-intervention-in-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14392&NewsCatID=338
10 dec 2011. The Turkish National Movement Party (aka MPH) is the third largest political party in Turkey. In the Turkish parliament on 10 dec 2011 its leader Devlet Bahceli described the current Turkish government’s policy towards Syria as “representative of the imperialist plots which target Syria and the region” and “dangerous”. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/10/387373.htm
24 jan 2012. The Turkish Democratic Party, “Demokrat Parti”, is a small party, politically centre-right, socially conservative and economically liberal. It is an historical remnant of earlier larger Kamalist parties. The current party leader Namık Kemal Zeybek has repeatedly said Turkey has no right to interfere in Syria’s affairs. He has called on the AKP government to change its policies toward Syria, which he says have damaged Turkey’s economic interests. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/222772.html
15 jan 2012. A leader of Turkey’s Workers’ Party, a small political party in Turkey, condemned Erdogan’s policy towards Syria. He did so in an appearance on Syrian State TV. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2012/01/16/394518.htm
7 dec 2011. The Saadet Party (aka Felicity Party) is a small Turkish political party founded in 2001. It is mainly supported by conservative Muslims in Turkey. The Deputy Chairman of the Party condemned the Turkish government’s policy towards Syria. He emphasized that it is wrong for the Turkish government to tolerate a harbor in Turkey for armed men operating against the Syrian government. He also condemned the double standards embodied in the policies of Western countries. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/07/386581.htm . UPDATE 5 jan 2012: A delegation of the Felicity Party headed by its leader Mustafa Kamalak visited Syria and had individual personal meetings with Syrian Vice President Najah al-Attar, Foreign Minster Walid Al-Moallem, Minister of Information Adnan Mahmoud, and Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2012/01/05/392578.htm . On 7 jan 2012 they met with Bashar. After the meetings, Mustafa Kamalak stressed that the Syrian leadership is serious about the comprehensive reform program. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2012/01/08/392791.htm . Addendum 9 dec 2011: The People’s Voice Party in Turkey is a splinter from the Saadet Party (aka Felicity Party). The leader of the People’s Voice Party, Numan Kurtulmuş, described the policies of the government of Erdogan towards Syria as “unbalanced” and “serve foreign interests”. He accused his government of being involved in an international conspiracy against Syria. He said the economic sanctions imposed by Ankara against Syria are unjust and have damaged the economy in Turkey as well as in Syria. He added that any foreign interference in the Syrian affairs will “open the gates of hell”. He insisted on a strictly internal national solution in Syria. http://www.sana.sy/eng/193/2011/12/09/387122.htm . Update 30 dec 2011: Numan Kurtulmus reiterated that the Syrians are the ones responsible for resolving the crisis in their country through dialogue. He stressed the necessity to reject all the western plots targeting the region and its people. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/30/391490.htm
10 dec 2011. The chairperson of the national Turkish Businessmen Union, Umit Poyner, said the stance of Erdogan’s government towards Syria is a result of provocations from London, Paris and other capital cities, and she called on the government to be cautious, and she pointed out that Turkey is facing economic problems in some sectors because of the Turkish government’s action. An honorary chairperson of the Turkish Businessmen Union, Rahmi Koc, called on the Turkish Government to not be interfering in Syria’s internal political affairs. Hamdi Akin, the chairperson of Akvan Company, a leading company in Turkey, expressed worries over Erdogan’s policies towards Syria. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/10/387373.htm
1 dec 2011. Kemal Kilicdaroglu the leader of the CHP strongly condemned the Turkish government’s economic sanctions on Syria, saying “these acts don’t benefit Turkey”. http://www.sana.sy/eng/337/2011/12/01/385510.htm , http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-12/02/c_131283086.htm . 12 dec 2011. A group of parliamentarians of the CHP, Turkey’s largest opposition party, asked the Turkish parliament to form a special committee to investigate the latest developments in Syrian-Turkish economic relations. Spokesman of the group, MP Mehmet Seker, pointed to the precipitous recent drop in trade volume between the two countries and said that the Turkish economy is suffering huge losses. He stressed that the current Turkish government is responsible for the deteriorated Syrian-Turkish relations. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/12/387785.htm . Addendum 14 dec 2011: Refik Eryilmaz, a Turkish member of parliament with the CHP said that the Erdogan government’s support to the Syrian opposition poses a threat to Turkey’s interests and national security. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2011/12/14/388228.htm
23 jan 2012. Some members of the Turkish Parliament who are members of the CHP and who are representing parliamentary districts in Antakya (on the Syrian border) have gone on record against Erdogan’s Syria policy. http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2012/01/23/396118.htm
2 nov 2011. A deputy leader of the CHP, Birgul Ayman Guler, who is also a professor of political sciences, visited Syria for a few days around 1 Nov 2011 and said the visit has helped to educate her and expose the false claims promoted by international media regarding the criminal acts perpetrated by terrorist groups which those media allege they were committed by the Syrian authorities against their own people. Guler said that what the delegation members have seen during their visit to various places in Syria confirmed the fakeness of such claims which come in the framework of a big instigation campaign launched against Syria by its enemies. She visited Damascus, Aleppo and Latakia as part of a Turkish delegation comprised of 38 women. http://www.sana.sy/eng/337/2011/11/02/379619.htm , http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2011/11/01/379289.htm , http://sana.sy/eng/337/2011/10/31/379089.htm . On 30 nov 2011 Birgul Ayman Guler reiterated that Western media outlets are not reporting the reality in Syria. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/212930.html

Posted by: Parviziyi | Mar 22 2012 21:21 utc | 35

Posted by: Parviziyi | Mar 22, 2012 2:06:32 PM | 33
So the west, who has loudly “hunted dead or alive” OBL, al qaeda and islamic extremists now wants to oust another secular regime to install jihadis instead?
West will use whichever side advances its goals, having no loyalty to any side but expediency and compliance. US even offered Hezbollah an alliance deal beck in 2002 but HA told them to shove it, hence “bad terrorists” unlike helpful tools, MB who are now our “good terrorists”.

Posted by: Mercs for Hire | Mar 22 2012 21:30 utc | 36

Mercs, 34 & 35,
Haven’t seen you here before. Have I missed you or these your first posts? You caught my attention because I’ve believed (I love it, it says a lot)-sloprot, is a shill and provocateur for a long time but I think you’ve nailed it. For AIPAC! From all his/her/it’s dreck over so many years now your suspicion rang true to me.

West will use whichever side advances its goals, having no loyalty to any side but expediency and compliance.

Welcome.

Posted by: juannie | Mar 22 2012 23:35 utc | 37

@Ana Souri (6)
Thanks for the link. One of the authors, Richard Labévière, wrote a book about the Ehden Killing when the frangié family was assassinated. He knows very well Syria and Lebanon and the political dynamics of both countries. The book is chilling, a second per second account of the crime of Ehden but with a lot of analyses of forces on the ground at the time and historical knowledge.

Posted by: Sophia | Mar 23 2012 2:30 utc | 38

After all, who in “the West” wants to find themselves fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda, or even supporting the same leadership that the arch-terrorists are supporting?
Posted by: Johnboy Mar 21, 2012 10:03:27 PM | 22
That’s what they did in Libya last year.

Posted by: Susan | Mar 24 2012 2:33 utc | 39

The Independent / Patrick Cockburn: The attempt to topple President Assad has failed.

Posted by: Philippe | Mar 25 2012 4:20 utc | 40

‘b’ above linked to a recent interview with the head of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who advocates violent insurgency against the Syrian government, http://www.majalla.com/eng/2012/03/article55230039 . I have a related comment. The historian|journalist Patrick Seale said on 20 Mar 2012: “The long campaign of terror against Hafez al-Assad from 1976 to 1982 was political insanity. By defeating it, Hafez won himself nearly two more decades of rule. Similarly, the arming of the Opposition against Bashar al-Assad seems not to have advanced the Opposition’s cause.” It’s looking to me very likely that low-grade violent rebellion and random acts of terrorism will continue for another year at a minimum. This will be politically self-destructive or political insanity for the Syrian Opposition as a whole. Over the past year the Assad regime has made serious, politically popular, and good and liberal changes to fundamental political institutions including a new Constitution, a new Political Parties Law, a new Elections Law, a new Information Media Law, a new law liberally regulating organized public protests, and repeal of the would-be or so-called “Emergency Law”. A new Anti-Corruption Law is still in the pipeline. Except for that last one, the reforms are done, and the reforms have been welcomed and accepted by the generality of the people of Syria with no controversy. But the regime has made no concessions at all to true Islamists: Under the new Constitution, Islamic political parties are illegal. So true Islamists can see themselves as having no political alternative to violence. Here’s Bashar Assad on 13 Dec 2011 ( http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/13-12-2011/119945-bashar_assad-0/ ): “No movement that acts under religious slogans and aims to split the Syrian society can hope for legalization. This goes for the Muslim Brotherhood too. This organization can not be legalized judging upon their ideology. It does not mean, though, that we cut those people from the opportunity to participate in the peaceful life of the country. We offer them to establish their own political party which would be based on secular principles so that the party could compete for seats in parliament.” Happily for Syria, most Syrians agree with that. But there’s some minority of righteous Islamists who will not agree, and it is not necessarily insane for them to use violence to keep their cause from being forgotten. As commented before on this board by me, the Sunni clerical leadership and the generality of the Sunni clerics in Syria, and the generality of the whole population, endorse the clause in the new Constitution that bans religious political parties — http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/03/open-thread-2012-07.html#comments (also http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/03/the-syrian-revolution-is-possibly-over.html#comments ). The Muslim Brotherhood represents a small minority, and cannot claim to represent the Popular Will of the People of Syria, when the Muslim Brotherhood advocates insurrection against the regime to be followed by legalization of Islamic parties. But the Muslim Brotherhood has God on its side, you know. When people can interpret themselves as agents of God, it can enable them to do things in good conscience that ordinary civilized human beings can’t do, such as terrorism.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Mar 26 2012 1:40 utc | 41

The National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, abreviated as NCC (also NCB), is a Syrian opposition bloc consisting of about 13 mostly left-leaning political factions and independent political activists; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coordination_Committee_for_Democratic_Change . It is one of the two main Syrian dissident blocs that are quoted in Western newspapers. The other is the SNC. The SNC is foreign-based and is focused on getting foreign military intervention, while the NCC is Syria-based and opposes foreign military intervention.
This thread is about “The Syrian Rebellion One Year On”. What follows is about the incompetence of the NCC, one year on.
Syrian dissident Haytham Manna, who is a spokesperson of the NCB group, said on 2 Jan 2012: “For the Syrian revolution to succeed we need three things. First, we need the massive popular mobilization. Secondly, we need people with historical legitimacy to be involved…. Thirdly, we need leadership on the streets. Without leadership, we face the danger of having the revolution hijacked by street thugs.” http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/haytham-al-manna-politics-behind-pact-ghalioun
Thus as late as January 2012 the NCC still had the pipe dream of “massive” popular mobilization on the streets. Street protest turnout-size stopped growing on Friday 29 Apr 2011 (http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=9450#comment-248498 ). Overall growth stopped on 29 Apr 2011 and overall growth has never resumed since, although some localities did have growth after that date. After the escalation in violence by dissidents in the later part of year 2011, a “massive popular mobilization” became even more of an unrealistic pipe dream. The bulk or the mainstream of Syrian political opinion has been appalled by the violence of the rebels and is very firmly on the side of the forces of law and order.
Haytham Al-Manna in January 2012 speaking in the present tense said: “Without leadership, we face the danger of having the revolution hijacked by street thugs.” That horse had already bolted well before January 2012.
There were a couple of significant tactics that the NCC could’ve done differently in 2011 that would’ve helped them to keep the protests peaceful, and would’ve gotten them more turnout and more respectability in the eyes of the people of Syria. Under the 1973 Syrian Constitution, “Citizens have the right to meet and demonstrate peacefully within the principles of the Constitution. The law regulates the exercise of this right.” In Spring 2011, soon after the regime repealed the so-called “Emergency Law”, the regime enacted a new law regulating peaceful protesting on the streets. The new law was and is a liberal law, essentially the same as the law on the books throughout the European Union for instance. Under the law, the protest organizers have to apply to the police for a license to hold a demonstration in a particular public place on a particular day. The Syrian protest organizers made the tactical decision nationwide to not apply for any license to demonstrate. The Local Coordinating Committees issued a policy statement in early June that “peaceful protests… shall not seek permission and authorisation from the government” — http://www.lccsyria.org/2863 . Thus all protests were illegal, by policy decision of the organizers.
Later, the NCC dissident group made the tactical decision to not apply for a license to be a political party in Syria. All political parties have to be registered or licensed, so the NCC group is legally unable to compete in the parliamentary elections on 7 May 2012. Hassan Abdel Azim, who is another spokesperson for the NCC, said the NCC group “will not participate in future elections.” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-02/27/c_122762055.htm
The NCC’s objective is a peaceful unconstitutional overthrow of the Assad regime. “Peaceful unconstitutional” is a contradiction in terms. It is totally unrealistic. In addition the NCC also have no realistic concept of what would happen after hypothetically the regime were overthrown.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Mar 26 2012 1:50 utc | 42

NSC, FSA and NCC hoped NATO would take care of the Syrian government, that didn’t work out so good for them. NATO won’t go against the UN anymore. All in all, there could be made some very different decisions if Obama weren’t president. We have seen what the republicans in the US have wanted to do, so it’s probably a good thing the democrats are governing USA for now.
May 7. will settle some of these revolution issues in Syria, and hopefully shut Hillary Clinton up. And Bibi have probably given up on the Iran-thing, if USA won’t do it, Israel shure won’t. That puts a lot of the plans for the middle east to rest for a while.
In the future, I guess the united nations, even the western ones, will stop with the undemocratic terrorist-strategy when they want revolution in countries around Israel. And hopefully people will learn to not be controlled so easily by western media, and to not let western media so easily be controlled by NGOs controlled by the Pentagon that are controlled by MOSSAD. But that requires journalists and editors to be exposed as the frauds they are when they step out of line.

Posted by: Alexander | Mar 26 2012 10:56 utc | 43

Back to Main