The Government and the Opposition.

Contributed by Dima Moussa. Originally written for, and published in Syrian Hurriyat Magazine.

Months passed, between divisions and disagreements, before the Syrian Opposition met in Istanbul. Despite its political and ideological differences, it has finally decided to join ranks under the banner of the Syrian National Council (SNC). However, the Opposition did not easily arrive at this stage, or without any obstacles. During the period leading up to the formation of the SNC, many in Syria and abroad, wondered in disbelief about the position of the Syrian Opposition after nearly seven months since the beginning of the Revolution; this peaceful Revolution of the Syrian people who amazed the world and received its admiration with their epic resilience against one of the most oppressive and brutal regimes in modern history. 

For months, the Opposition could not unite and assume its duties as a leader of the Revolutionaries. It also did not attempt to gain recognition and legitimacy for the popular movement, to prepare for the stage after the regime is toppled. This weakness and division resulted in disappointment among many of the Revolutionaries, which pushed them to depend more on the Local Coordinating Committees (which have done a great job). As for the reluctant ones, the skeptics, and opponents of the Revolution – they downplayed the importance of the Revolution and its ability to achieve any change. Meanwhile, foreign countries used the absence of a defined Opposition with clear characteristics and goals as an excuse to not provide enough support and international protection to the Revolution in facing the criminal regime, which uses the ugliest suppression and torture against its own people.

So what is the behind the Opposition’s inability to overlook its differences and unite its ranks for more than six months? This is all despite the fact that the Opposition agrees on the main goal, and that is to overthrow the tyrannical Ba’athist regime and establish a free, democratic state. At the same time, we find that opposition in democratic states are able to overthrow the government merely by convincing the people that the government is not fit to continue leading the nation due to mistakes it makes when it exercises its leadership functions. In those nations, responsibilities are divided between the government and the opposition, where the government controls internal and foreign affairs, while the opposition monitors the government’s performance and confronts it when issues must be addressed or fixed within a framework of councils and organizations whose members are freely elected and democratically by the citizens. The national army, in these democratic nations, works under the guidance of and in cooperation with the government to protect the country from external invasions and defending it if needed, without getting involved in politics. As for keeping peace and ensuring safety of its citizens, that is the duty of the internal state security that also deals with demonstrations and protests, where the only weapons it uses are a helmet, a shield, and a rubber baton – to be used only for self-defense.

As for authoritarian regimes, a small group that is not elected by citizens reaches the government using tricks and devious ways, and is able to remain in power by using a security apparatus to manage state and internal affairs. As for the army, it becomes politicized and part of the government, and its main role is to protect the legitimacy of the government, rather than protecting the country. Additionally, the preference is for hypocrites and opportunists to conduct affairs of the state, and the standard for assessing citizenship becomes the degree of loyalty rather than the performance. 

As a result, corruption and favoritism spread, and the principle of equal opportunity is eliminated. The freedom of the majority of the honest citizens is suppressed, their dignity is wasted, and their economic and social conditions worsen, until their only interest is limited to making a living with the least amount of insult and humiliation. All this, with citizens having no right to complain, protest, or criticize. This leaves no room for any kind of opposition, whether political or individual, and if there happens to be opposition, their destiny is oppression or fabricating charges and throwing them in jail if they cannot escape the country. Therefore, the opposition figures are generally divided and unable to unite its ranks, positions, and efforts, and opposition figures are unable to trust one another because some may become weak and start cooperating with the government by belonging to a framework of formal democracy that is void of any power to real effectiveness. One such example is the People’s Representatives Council. In other situations, the opposition may form several opportunistic parties under the lead of the government’s party, and the only purpose of these councils and organizations is to beautify the ugly face of the regime.

What is happening Syria now is the result of the submission of the Syrian people to this kind of an oppressive regime for more than 40 years. Then conditions worsened to the point that protest movements started appearing here and there, and got repressed by the regime. But as soon as these movements became greater and reached the point of a revolution against the regime, the regime dropped its mask and its ugly face emerged, with the result being the massacre in Hama. When the republican regime was embarrassingly inherited like a monarchy, many people were optimistic, because this newcomer had a good reputation for openness, democracy, and liberalism. Everyone was waiting for the great reforms he promised. Damascus then had a calm spring, but it was very short-lived, when again it woke up to find the autumn of the previous regime coming back again to take the same repressive approach. All opposition figured were chased, regardless of their leanings, and any chance to form internal opposition was crushed, and because of fear for their families from revenge by the government, the opposition figures’ efforts to form true opposition outside were also crushed. 

When conditions became bad to the point where the people could not take it anymore, protesting masses took to the streets, being affected by the spring of change in the region, and called for its minimum rights, freedoms, and dignity. The response of the government then came, not expecting the people to dare pierce through the wall of fear and get out of its control. The regime depended on the security solution from Day One, and tried to repress the protests in a brutal manner using state security forces supported by tanks. As a result, many martyrs fell, a large number of protesters were arrested, and the result was the increased persistence of the protestors in asking for their demands. The circle of protests spread until it included all Syrian cities and villages, and with that increased the repressive, arrest, and torture measures. The chants and slogans of the protestors went from demanding reforms to nothing less than overthrowing the regime.

All these people are waiting for is that some of the opposition figures put behind them their old hatred and ideological, organizational, and national disputes, and to put off such disputes until after the regime is overthrown. What the opposition needs to do now is to form what can be formed as a legitimate representative of all revolutionaries, and to have the young leaders inside participate. However, because of the above-mentioned disputes, this opposition appeared divided and awkward, and needed several attempts that may have lasted longer than necessary to unite its ranks. Now, it seems that the opposition figures have overcome their differences and are ready to work together within the framework of the SNC. Our hope is that the SNC is able to reach the level of international recognition so it can relay the voice of the people, their demands, and the Revolution’s goals to the rest of the world, and thus secure international support for the Syrian people. If that happens, this will be the beginning of the end for this criminal regime, and we may witness in a future Syria reconciliation between the opposition and the government, where each side does its part in building Syria, without shedding blood or forcing opposition figures to organize their ranks in exile.

Dima Moussa is a Syrian-American attorney and member of the Syrian National Council (SNC). She can be contacted here.

The views identified in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of NAFS.

Foreign Military Intervention. Why this is not an option for Syria.

Contributed by Sarab Al-Jijakli

As the Syrian revolution enters its 7th month, the perceived success of the NATO military intervention in Libya is gaining momentum among some Syrian opposition circles as a desirable approach to combat the escalation of Assad regime brutality.

This argument however, doesn’t account for the unique differences between the two nations and the realities of foreign interests.

The revolution must and will stay purely a Syrian-driven one, and here are a few points why:

1.    The oil factor

Libya's oil reserves are the largest in Africa and 9th largest in the world. Syria, while utilizing its oil to generate up to 30% of the State’s budget, is not a major oil producer by Middle Eastern standards.


Oil has been, and continues to be, the major influencer that drives western powers to intervene in the Arab world. As we have seen repeatedly over the past 50 years, influence over the production and distribution of oil resources dictates western policy in the area.

Oil is one of the key reasons why western powers were so willing and eager, to push for military intervention in Libya, while turning a blind eye to similar human catastrophes in Syria, Yemen, and even Bahrain.

There is also a practical element to this; the presence of oil ensures that there is a means to pay the bills for the cost of military intervention.

2.    A ‘readied’ opposition

Within weeks of the outbreak of pro-democracy demonstrations in Libya, a national transitional council was formed. We have learned that this was not coincidental. Additionally, senior military figures along with disgruntled influencers in Libya had been coordinating with NATO powers to ensure an alternative to Qaddafi’s regime, and were readied in Benghazi. This is not to say that the revolution was compromised or triggered by these elements. Far from it. Rather, they were ready to step in shortly after the Libyan people began demanding change.

The Syrian case is very different and as we have seen, the diverse opposition has been anything but ready. Unlike Libya, there will not be one entity to represent the revolution. Rather, there are networks of individuals representing outside opposition elements, local revolutionary committees, and the traditional ‘banned’ parties inside Syria.

This does not give the Western powers the confidence that any ‘partners’ they empower will ensure their interests are implementable once Assad falls.

3.    No Fly Zones & ‘boots on the ground’

Many have called for a no fly zone (NFZ) to protect Syrian protestors. It is easy to ask for a NFZ, but this assumes that world powers can muster the political support to implement one (they cannot). 

An NFZ essentially requires a state of war to effectively destroy air defense systems along with intelligence coordination on the ground to guide such attacks.

Assad’s air force has not so far been a major repressive force against the protestors, and while some have suggested an NFZ would deter regime security forces from traveling from city to city, it is highly unlikely, that NATO would engage in a ground war, when there are no military partners on the ground.

Such factors were present in Libya. Elements of the Libyan military defected early on in the uprising, therefore ensuring a coordinated response. Syria does not have this. While there have been desertions across the conscript army, there have not been any mass desertions that can amount to a substantial force.

Additionally, as with ‘intervention’ in other Arab nations, there would be a major concern that NATO would destroy the infrastructure in Syria. Without the oil revenue to rebuild, however, this would severely stunt Syria’s post-Assad recovery.

4.    The People's revolution

To date, the protest movement has effectively held to three key pillars:

• Peaceful revolution – "no" to violent resistance
• The Syrian people are ONE – "no" to sectarianism
• This is a Syrian people’s revolution – "no" to foreign military intervention

The Syrian people have shown tremendous courage and discipline in keeping the protest movement peaceful to date. This has served to show the world the principled aims of the revolution, but has also been pragmatic, as there has been no homegrown military response as there was in Libya.

This being said, Syrians have the right, in the face of such brutality, to confront the regime with armed resistance.

To introduce foreign military intervention, however, will take the Syrian people out of the driver's seat and cause a further disconnect among Syrians: splitting the support for the revolution and even galvanizing many to defend the nation on the side of the regime against outsiders.

Moving forward.

While not a military one, there is a role to play for the Western and other international powers – namely, a humanitarian role (aid and international observers to act as shields for protesters), and a role in the form of diplomatic, economic, and political isolation of the regime to ensure that the Syrian people can themselves finish the job.

Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that Western nations will not intervene militarily, because such an intervention does not align with their interests. With this in mind, those figures in the Syrian opposition who call for foreign military intervention, should take heed and stop asking for it. It is reactionary and short-sighted to do so.

It is quite possible that the nature of the revolution may change from a peaceful one to an armed resistance. However, it must be made clear that the Syrian people themselves will deliver freedom to their nation – it won’t come on the wings of the West.

Sarab Al-Jijakli is a long-time activist within the Arab-American community and co-founded  NAAP-NY. He is also a founding member of The National Alliance for Syria. Contact him at @sarabny

The views identified in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of NAFS.