Hama Protest (Reuters Image)
17th July 2011
Syria – Who to Believe?
Mark Hanson
Two Syrias exist today. One is the Syria of the human rights groups; the activists; the free media of the West and the relatively free reporting of al-Jazeera. This Syria is one where the protesters peacefully, assertively and bravely protest against a regime that has no legitimacy; has brutally suppressed dissent; tortures children and has a profoundly embedded propaganda machine.
The other is the Syria of the regime, where the people support the reforming and honourable president, the violence is armed uprising by Islamist terrorists, and where the army is the protector of the people.
My tone in this article will be far more anti-regime than my last writing on this subject, due to new information that has come my way, and a prayerful reappraisal of the most Godly stance to take in what is undoubtedly a grave situation whichever Syria you believe in. Despite that, however, it does need to be acknowledged that the regime of the al-Assad family maintains strong support in certain sections of the Syrian people.
Whilst the claims of up to 9 million regime supporters taking to the streets may be wildly over-estimated, it cannot be denied that many see the regime as the bringer and maintainer of stability. There is a profound fear amongst certain Syrians, especially Alawis and Christians, that should the regime fall, an extremist Islamic power set will replace it and will create a situation where minorities will be oppressed and persecuted. Many look to Iraq, which also had a secular Ba’athist regime under Saddam Hussein, and see the sectarian violence and persecution of minorities.
Reports have come out, as given in the previous article, that some of the protesters in Syria have been chanting violent rhetoric against Christians in particular.
Yet the activists and dissidents that I have spoken to are adamant: the protesters in Syria have sworn a vow: “peaceful to the end”. They are prepared to die, they know it is a very real possibility, yet they are not prepared to kill. The idea of sectarian warfare in Syria is, according to one dissident who is now exiled in Switzerland, the playing upon fears by the Syrian regime. He agrees that yes, sectarian violence is a possibility, but it is a remote possibility. Syrians I have had contact with testify to the unity of the Syrian people, that for Syrians there is neither Alawi nor Sunni, neither Muslim nor Christian. The talk of sectarian hatred is, according to these sources, instigated by the regime.
It must be acknowledged that the regime of Bashar al-Assad has, over the years, built up a profoundly embedded and effective propaganda regime. Syrian press and TV are State-run, and no free press is permitted. Much of the impression gained by those who now oppose the protests has been formed by these media outlets. Until recently, al-Assad held high popularity due to being seen as a reformer. And much of that popularity remains. But that does not mean that the brutality with which the demonstrators are being treated with is any less real. It means that those who have come to trust the stories of the regime are convinced that there are large numbers of terrorists in Syria, and that the army is the protector against abductions, torture and violence.
A friend of mine who still lives in Syria said that “since the army came it is the first time we have felt safe.” This is the army, which she sees as saviours, that is firing live rounds at protesters chanting “peaceful, peaceful.”
I asked my dissident friend in Switzerland about some of the discrepancies with the prevailing narrative in the West. Discrepancies such as the profound lack of any significant number of army defections. His answer is telling. According to information he has, the regime has been using two, possibly three, of the army units closest to the regime. These ultra-loyal, well paid soldiers, many of them mercenaries kept with the lure of filthy lucre. They are so close to the regime that they are part of it. The remaining army is kept in barracks, with an even tighter and impressive propaganda machine directed at them.
Defections are also low because of the methodology of the crackdowns, which, fittingly to the information I have received, generally occurs in one city at a time. The army is sent in to the cities, yet behind them are positioned snipers, ready to shoot not only protesters, but any member of the security services that step out of line. Fear can be a big motivator.
The latest crackdown that occurred Friday did differ, in that reports of army units moving in came simultaneously from Homs, Damascus, Dera’a and elsewhere. Is this an indication that other military units are now being used? Possibly it is, but such is only conjecture. If it is true, then it could be the regime’s undoing, as more ordinary soldiers, those enlisted to fight armies, are ordered to shoot women and children.
Syrians are convinced, however, of the nature of Syria and the Syrian people. Whether pro- or anti- regime, the Syrians I have had contact with are united: Syria is a great country, and Syrians are a people committed to their country and their fellow Syrians. The difference is their views of where the rotten apple dwells. For those who support the regime, the rotten apple is foreign influence, with al-Assad the defender of Syrian autonomy. For those who oppose the regime, the regime is the rotten apple, and peace cannot prevail until the regime is brought down.
The protesters are clear that Syrians wish to be part of the global community. They want closer links with the European Union and the United Nations. They want a free, democratic model of statehood. The West seems to be moving toward supporting their aims, yet in many instances Western nations have been careful not to support too openly. Some Syrians see this as evidence that the West wants Assad to remain. The tentative proposals made by the US have suggested that reform take place with Assad remaining in power. Yet, as the US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford stated, "It's not an American decision. What we will not do is to claim to speak for them. They are capable of speaking for themselves."
