The great leap to more of the same
May 25, 2005
My latest article on Syria was delivered a couple of weeks ago but will only come out next week; that's the problem with magazines - a lot of things can happen before publication. In my case, however, there's nothing that I need to take back or amend, fortunately for the timeliness of the piece, and unfortunately for Syria.
As I've often said elsewhere, the so-called reforms promised by the Syrian regime (which speaks of a "great leap" forward with the 10th conference of the regional command of the Baath party, due to take place from June 6 to 9) are going to be minimal and mostly cosmetic - anything to maintain the status quo. The ridiculously limited economic "reforms" being considered are made not out of concern for the dire straits in which many Syrians find themselves, but in order to comply with the demands of the EU Association Agreement.
The real issues are not even on the table. Even if they were, where would one start? Removing the state of emergency law, in place since 1963? The reform of the judiciary (for no justice can ever arise when the integrity of most judges is for sale, whether they like it or not)? The fate of thousands of prisoners of conscience (some missing since decades)? The return of the freedom of expression and of the press that Syrians saw flourish before the military coups and countercoups that preceded the arrival of the Baath on March 8 1963? The punishment of corruption, especially by those closest to the regime?
It is easier to choose where to start than to know where it will end, and more useful to define the issues before setting on the course. For one thing, there is no such thing as an old guard and a new guard; there is only the guard. And the guard is guarding the assets it has acquired over the past decades from all those who would rather spread Syria's riches amongst the people. The "new" elements people talk about are mostly those who work in state institutions (not to be confused with the regime) where they can pretend to be making a difference.
Tonight, on Al Jazeera's "The Opposite Direction" program dealing with the current situation in Syria, a typical spokesman for the regime made a complete fool of himself, as most of these Baathist dinosaurs usually do. What is more amusing, or rather more worrying, is that he seemed to think he was doing very well, accusing Syrian civil society activists of being worse than Americans and Israelis, and keeping a straight face while talking about the reforms. Yet it is not funny anymore. Especially when today, the only formal survivor of the Damascus Winter was silenced when 8 members from the only civil society forum still allowed to meet, that of Jamal Atassi, were arrested at dawn.
How sad it is when a regime fears its intellectuals more than those who mean the whole country real harm. I used to regularly attend numerous civil society gatherings in Damascus when I lived there, even before the Damascus Spring (including Economic Tuesdays and the Atassi forums), and can vouch for their value and for the participants' sincerity and patriotism.
That's not the only news coming from Syria today. Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, announced to The New York Times that
Syria had severed all links with American military and intelligence agencies, the reasoning being that the Bush administration was doing everything to escalate the situation with Syria, no matter what Syria does. The Bush administration reacted with surprise at this announcement, being more accustomed to dictate the level of the relationship with Syria.
On the one hand, Imad Moustapha is right, even though he somewhat softened his remarks in a later interview (following a pattern that has become the only foreign policy Syria seems to have adopted: speak now, retract and rephrase later). No matter what Syria does, the US will find something else to complain about. In fact, I have frequently argued that Syria has given too many concessions on the international front without proper consideration and without getting anything in return. Many Syrians are fed up by the double standards constantly exercised by the US and by the constant pressure applied unreasonably on Syria, when the regime has done practically everything it could (sometimes immediately, others eventually) to satisfy American demands. Official Syrian rhetoric is often a lot tougher than the regime's actual position, after all.
On the other hand, what could Syria possibly gain with such a statement? As Richard Boucher immediately reacted, making comments like this is probably a step in the wrong direction – at least as far as relations with the US are concerned. But relations were headed south anyway: sanctions (which only affect the people) had just been renewed, as had numerous accusations about Syrian involvement in everything that's going wrong in the Middle East.
Is this Syria's way of catching Bush's attention, and reminding him that he still needs Syrian help? Or will Syria really stop supplying the US with intelligence and assistance in its "war on terror" (including torture) as it has since September 11?
When the country is facing extreme foreign pressure, most Syrians (like most people) become even more patriotic than usual. But will current American pressure, which will no doubt be further fuelled by these recent Syrian statements, be enough to ward off internal demands, for the moment? It wouldn't be the first time the regime depended on it. Judging by the mood in Syria recently, however, most people are in no mood to be taught (or sold, to follow the Arabic expression) patriotism, and insist on seeing real change – for a change.
