Thursday, January 31, 2013

Syria vs. Mali: Similarities, Differences


Text of my commentary published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan
_______________________________________________

Today, the world is totally chaotic; however, current crises share same features influenced by similar or mutual factors. Investigating the similarities and differences of the crises in Syria and Mali is not only remarkable but also sheds light on vague aspects of these two crises. On January 11th, France announced that at Malian government’s request it would launch war against armed groups occupying northern part of Mali. The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, warned that the fight could go on for “decades.”

Opposition groups

The UK, the US and the European Union provide military and intelligence support to the French in their battles against armed groups in northern Mali. They fight against four major military groups which claim to attempt to establish an Islamic government, including: 1. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; 2. The Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa; 3. Ansar al-Din; and 4. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad.The first three groups follow the Salafi School of thoughts and in practice they are so-called Jihadi. These groups have occupied northern parts of Mali since almost seven months ago. These groups, except for Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, had negotiations with Mali’s central government and even neighboring countries including Algeria. These negotiations were realized through attempts of some countries including the US, the Economic Community of West African States and the United Nations. In a nutshell, the military groups involved in the Mali’s crisis: A) follow the Al-Qaeda School of thoughts; B) have occupied a region for over six months; and C) know how to negotiate and had negotiations with Mali’s central government.In Syria, the military groups fighting against the army follow Salafi School of thoughts and espouse violent so-called jihad. So far, Syrian opposition groups failed to negotiate with any countries including Syrian government. Syrian opposition groups, except for the Free Syrian Army -which is just a “name” and has nothing to do with its real identity- not only have failed to negotiate but also have refused to join the coalition called “National Revolution”, whose president is Ahmad Mouaz Al-Khatib, believing the coalition is supported by the West. Among these are Al-Nasra, Al-Tawhid Brigade and Ahrar al-Sham. Moreover, during nine months of fighting against Syrian Army, the opposition groups could not occupy a single whole city and are still continuing their terrorist bombings and attacks. Therefore, they: A) follow Al-Qaeda School of thoughts; B) could not occupy a region; and C) refuse any negotiations and do not trust the West. Thus Syrian armed groups are neither supported and authorized by people, nor are they followers of western countries which expect their interests to be served in the future of Syria.

Current governments

Last year, the current Malian government was established through a military coup by Capt. Amadou Sanogo who was trained for military operations by the US Ministry of Defense. During the last year, the US, the United Nations and other international organizations put their efforts on persuading Malian government to agree to hold an election. Malian government and some of the opposition groups had planned an election in January 2013, which was never held. During the Syrian crisis, there have been two elections held: the first one was the constitution referendum in February 2012, and the second one was parliamentary election in May 2012. In 2009, 2 years before the Syrian crisis, “Bashar Al-Assad” was voted for as the most popular Arab Leader in five Arab countries, according to a major survey of public opinion in eleven Arab countries. Assad is the only Arab president who appears with his wife among ordinary people. Before the Syrian political and military crisis, this country was an active member of the Global Community. Most of the powers in the region who are now competing to overthrow Assad used to claim friendship with Syrian government and people. Nevertheless Assad’s government and the political structure of Syria are not free of mistakes. Non-democratic and security problems in the structure and performance of the government are clearly noticeable.

Human rights and the western claim to support it

Human rights is one of the main issues that is referred to over and over in the standpoints of countries opposing Syrian government in the biased or even objective reports of international organizations and in media attacks against Syria. This is comparable with human rights conditions in Mali even after the French military operations, especially the influences of these operations on human rights. According to the reports by the US Congressional Research Center, after France’s military operations, human rights condition in Mali is totally vague and France does not care about acting in accordance with the principles of human rights. In its report on the crisis in Libya, the US Congressional Research Center also says, “The consequences of France military operations upon human rights conditions and aid groups are vague.” Without ignoring or undermining the mistakes of Syrian government in preserving national security, it is clear that France military operations in Mali do not aim at protecting human rights or people.

From reasons to motivations

What came above was a quick review on some of the similarities of the current crises in Syria and Mali and how western countries confront them differently. If we suppose that western countries interventions in Mali and their support for the government are with good intentions, then with the same reasons they should have supported Syrian government. It is clear that western countries, in their foreign policy formation, follow principles other than what they claim; principles which are not more than the law of jungle and sacrificing other countries in the interest of their owns. Today’s Zaman, a Turkish newspaper, has recently reported that France ground and air strikes in Mali are aimed at “Mali’s oil and gold.”

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Let us assume that Bashar Al-Asad Steps Aside


Text of my commentary headlined: "Let us assume that Bashar Al-Asad Steps Aside" published by Iranian newspaper Khorasan on 8 January.
It was translated by BBC Monitoring
You can find the main text in persian at BORDERLESS

After seven months, Bashar Assad spoke once again and expressing his sadness at Syria's current situation, he proposed a five stage plan for a way out of the current crisis. The United States has described this plan as a "meaningless effort to maintain power" and Catherine Ashton, the European Union (EU) high representative for foreign affairs, has declared that Assad's resignation is the only option for a political solution. Mursi, the Egyptian president considers him a "war criminal", and Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister has described his remarks as "empty promises." The Syrian president's opposition believes that Bashar Assad is sacrificing the peace and security of his people for his own power mongering.

Let us assume that the claim by the Western/Arab concert, with solo music being provided by Turkey, is correct and after two years of bloodshed and killing in Syria, Bashar Assad will wake up and hand over power. What must be done after Bashar Assad's dismissal? The most optimistic scenario would be for armed groups to lay down their weapons and hold a comprehensive meeting with the participation of all Syrian groups. If we take a look at the experience of the region's other countries including Libya and Egypt, the varied Syrian groups must probably achieve a "comprehensive agreement" at the end of this meeting, which would depict Syria's political future. They can put this agreement to a referendum or they can establish a transition government on the basis of this agreement, which would represent all the groups. Syria's hypothetical transition government will provide the preliminaries for parliamentary elections to be held, just like similar cases in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, and it will take on the responsibility of its organization. After the election is held, the members of parliament will appoint a committee to prepare the "draft constitution" and after the public's approval, this constitution will be the basis of the establishment of "Syria's lawful government." We thus reach the "positive end to Syria's bitter crisis" and afterward, the people of this country will live their lives happily ever after. It seems that if a roadmap is to be defined after Assad's dismissal, it will be similar to the above mentioned scenario; a scenario that will resemble the role models of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt after the fall of their former governments. However, in view of Syria's indigenous requirements, they must use the role model offered by Iraq or Lebanon as far as the division of power among Syrian groups is concerned. If such a scenario is realized in practice, Western and Arab countries must hold victory celebrations and they will share in the happiness of the Syrian people.

However, all that we have so far mentioned is almost the repetition of the same thing that Bashar Assad, the Egyptian present recommended and explained in his recent speech in the University of Damascus. So why do Western governments and Bashar Asad's regional enemies refuse to accept it? The answer is clear. They are not seeking to resolve the crisis in Syria but have instead gambled their entire political and international reputation on the overthrow of Bashar Assad. These countries are not even prepared for free elections to take place in Syria, let alone Bashar Assad being one of the prospective candidates. Through the opportunity that has been created for them as a result of the revolutions in West Asia and North africa, Assad's domestic and foreign opposition are seeking to change the Syrian regime in accordance with their own desired criteria; even at the cost of death and homelessness of millions of Syrians. It is interesting that each of them harbours a different version of "their desired Syria" in their head. The United States and European countries are looking for a country that is coordinated with the West's values and policies and is not part of the axis of resistance. Egypt and Turkey wish for a Brotherhood orientated country a nd Saudi Arabia is after a Wahhabi state. This varied and contradictory ambitiousness is one of the reasons for their failure in overthrowing the Syrian government. Maybe the people of Syria understand the point that Bashar Assad's opposition is not prepared to weigh its political chances in free elections.

Source: Khorasan, Mashad, in Persian 08 Jan 13
i 1/2 BBC Monitoring