Wadah Khanfar: Syria between two massacres: Hama's memory endures

As Syrians find their voice to mark the 1982 massacre, their resolve to overthrow this brutal regime is clear

Demonstrators protest against Syria's Bashar al-Assad in the town of Hula near Homs, 3 February 2012

 

While Russia and China were using their veto to abort a UN security council resolution against the Syrian regime, the news of a massacre in Homs came thick and fast. In an unprecedented escalation, the Syrian regime sought to exploit the international hesitancy to have a bloody showdown with its opposition.

This came after Syrians had observed for the first time in 30 years the anniversary of the massacre carried out in Hama in February 1982. It is regarded as one of the most gruesome events in Syria's modern history. On that occasion, former president Hafiz al-Assad decimated most of the city of Hama with aerial bombings and tanks. About 30,000 inhabitants perished, while a similar number were detained, tortured and many killed in prisons. All this occurred in the shadow of the cold war and with the cover of the Soviet Union, which was then allied to Hafiz al-Assad's regime.

Last Friday, Syrian protesters rallied under the slogan "forgive us Hama, we apologise"; a clear reference to the abject silence that has overshadowed that massacre throughout the last three decades. Although Hama was an ever-present bleeding wound in the Syrian popular conscience, and a humiliating disgrace that shook their souls, people were prohibited from remembering or mentioning it throughout the entire period of Hafiz al-Assad's rule. When his son assumed power in 2000, many were optimistic that he would at least give some consideration to the victims or reveal the fate of the thousands who were swallowed up in the prisons. But the young president chose to follow in his father's footsteps; he perpetrated another massacre in Hama and many others in Homs and other Syrian cities and towns. However, this time Bashar al-Assad has miscalculated. The Syrian revolution, which has so far sacrificed more than 7,000 dead, will not end unless the regime is overthrown.

Hafiz al-Assad's regime managed to get away with the massacre of Hama in 1982 because of the international silence dictated by the balance of forces during the cold war and a media blackout, which denied the victims a voice and prevented them from presenting the images of their calamity.

It is true that the regional and international balance of power continues to play a negative role in ending the suffering of the Syrian people. But the Syrians – as other Arab people in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen – have now become the most important actors in the flow of events. This would enable them to overcome all external factors in their quest for freedom from tyranny and repression.

Regional and international hesitancy in dealing with Syria stems from two main factors. The first relates to the regional balance of power and what would happen if the regime collapsed. The second is linked to the alternatives that would replace the Ba'ath regime.

On a regional level, Syria represents the cornerstone of a strategic axis that extends from Tehran through Baghdad to Damascus and ends in Beirut. A change of regime in Syria would result in a fundamental change in this regional political configuration and alliances. In such a scenario, Iran would lose an important ally, which would affect its influence in Lebanon and Iraq. Therefore, Iran has a strong interest in defending the Syrian regime until the bitter end.

As for the possible alternatives to the regime, this is another problem confronting the main players in the region. Despite the theoretical state of "war" between Israel and Syria, the Assad regime has maintained quiet borders with Israel since 1967. Israel would face a new situation with unpredictable consequences if the Ba'ath regime collapsed, similar to the new relationship it faces with Egypt.

Analysts and politicians share a number of concerns about change in Syria; most importantly, the security of the religious minorities should the Sunnis become the majority in the new regime. What would this mean for the Alawites, Druze and Christians? Others have raised the issue of Syria's territorial integrity if a civil war erupts. Still, others highlight the organisational weakness of the Syrian opposition and question whether the Syrian National Council is capable of representing the Syrian masses and speaking on their behalf.

All these fears seem legitimate on the surface, except that they ignore an important truth, which is that the Syrian street is astute and its revolution is well aware of the dangers that surround it. They are very careful not to fall foul of these. A close examination of the popular action in recent months shows that the street has succeeded to largely neutralise the spectre of sectarianism and the militarisation of their revolution.

The Syrian popular consciousness has been able to protect the revolution from the virus of sectarianism and ethnicity by preserving its national character. From day one, the ranks of the opposition included Alawites, Christians, Druze and Sunni Arabs and Kurds. They all stood as one front, demanding freedom and dignity. Despite severe repression, the revolution managed to preserve its predominantly peaceful nature except in the context of defending civilians; this is a role now mainly carried out by the Free Syrian Army. This army consists of individuals and experienced officers who defected from the regime's army. They resolutely preserve the national discourse, and have not resorted to sectarian rhetoric. The Syrian street knows that the language of sectarianism will only serve the interest of the regime and it will divert the revolution from the path of democracy to that of an internal conflict that would end all hopes of living in freedom and dignity.

As for the supposed weakness and organisational ability of the Syrian opposition, there is in fact a huge capacity to organise and instil discipline. The people's co-ordinating committees administer to the people's needs efficiently. They communicate between themselves in all parts of Syria, assigning duties and dealing with logistics in a manner that is now much better than it was in the early days of the revolution. At the same time, the Syrian National Council has begun to organise its ranks abroad, agreeing on a political discourse that is more coherent and co-ordinated. True, the Syrian opposition is less well organised than their counterparts in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen because of the extreme brutality of the Syrian regime, but an acceptable measure of maturity and commitment has been achieved. The street, with its civil and political forces, is able to guide the process of transition to democracy with no less proficiency than the other peoples in the region who have already got rid of their regimes.

The demonstrations that Syria witnessed last Friday ("forgive us Hama, we apologise") show that the Syrian people have resolved to overthrow the regime. It is now for the international community, especially Russia and China, to ask for forgiveness from Hama, Homs, Idlib and the Syrian people. They should also make their choices, because this time the Syrian people have a voice, and it is being heard, with photos of their daily suffering being widely circulated, and memories that never die.

Wadah Khanfar: The Arab Spring’s Balance Sheet / 為阿拉伯之春算筆賬

CAIRO – Last year’s events in Egypt and Tunisia drew the curtain on a tottering old order and delivered much of the Arab world into a long-awaited new era. But what that new era will look like remains very much an open question, given the many challenges that the region’s countries still face.

The old order that has begun to vanish extends beyond the former regimes. The region’s entire value system – a political culture forged by autocracy – is being transformed. Arab men and women have shed the sense of humiliation and inferiority that despotism imposed on them – and that fostered desperation, anger, violence, and insularity.

This transformation, though far from complete – indeed, it may well last years – has nonetheless started to bear fruit. If the 2011 uprisings had not occurred, we would now be witnessing another year of autocracy, with more talk of dynastic successions. That would mean further humiliation for ordinary people, who bear the brunt of corruption, as government officials and their crony capitalists continued to siphon off public funds.

The Arab media would still be heaping uncritical praise on the region’s presidents and their families, while development programs would be looted by them. Education would continue to stagnate, and Arab societies, which are divided across sectarian, tribal, and regional lines, would experience rising levels of retribution and violence. The infamous “death boats,” on which hundreds of young North African men risked their lives every year in search of employment and a better life abroad, would continue to deliver those who survived the journey onto Europe’s unwelcoming shores. And Arabs’ rage would reach unprecedented levels, causing utter mayhem and destruction.

Arab youth have rescued the Arab world from this fate. Their conscientiousness and integrity have restored people’s self-confidence. The old regimes’ opponents have demonstrated bravery without recklessness, and differences of opinion without bigotry.

Indeed, we have seen Islamists, liberals, and leftists standing together in defiance. We have seen Muslims and Copts protect each other in Cairo. In Yemen, we have seen local tribesmen follow a woman, Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakel Karman, in the fight for freedom. And we have seen the Arab media foster a mature debate about democracy, constitutionalism, and the role of Islam in the modern state, rather than dispensing disinformation and crass propaganda.

But the transformation must not stop here. The new and old political forces should initiate a dialogue to create a consensus on the rules of political engagement. As the people become their own masters, those who fail to engage in this process will eventually find themselves without political power.

Other countries in the region, and beyond, should embrace the Arab Spring. In particular, the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) should abandon their hesitance to support the post-revolution governments. Ultimately, the changes occurring in the Arab world will contribute to the entire region’s economic prosperity and political stability.

Today, Tunisia and Egypt are experiencing severe economic crises. Before Tunisia’s revolution, for example, 500,000 of its labor force of 3.6 million were unemployed, and that number has since risen to 700,000. Egypt has lost roughly $9 billion in capital flight in recent months. But, according to Egypt’s prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri, the country’s Arab “brethren” have delivered only $1 billion of the $10.5 billion in aid and loans that they promised.

Moreover, Tunisia and Egypt have so far received none of the $35 billion promised by the G-8 countries. And, given the current global economic crisis, the funds are not likely to be forthcoming in the near future.

The region’s emerging democracies urgently need an Arab initiative that resembles the Marshall Plan – a program to attract large-scale investment in infrastructure, industry, and agriculture (and in the region’s wealth of untapped technical skills), thereby boosting employment. The initiative should also encourage free movement of goods and people within the region, by lifting the customs restrictions and complicated procedures that hinder bilateral and multilateral trade. Creating regional development banks and building a Mediterranean express railway from Alexandria to Rabat would serve this goal.

But long-term investments will not solve the immediate crisis. Egypt and Tunisia need immediate cash deposits and grants, and their newly elected leaderships should not be forced to resort to begging. In the past, the Gulf countries have supported Egypt and Tunisia. It is now in the GCC’s best interests to support them again as they make the transition to freedom.

Meanwhile, the United States and the European Union should recognize the nature and depth of the unfolding changes. The Arab public is fully aware of the close alliances that existed between the West and the now-defunct despotic regimes, yet they have exhibited no desire for vengeance or retribution towards the West.

It is past time for the West to accept the Arab people’s will and to stop exaggerating the repercussions of change. The West must support genuine democracy in the Arab world. If the Arab Spring is aborted, the result will be not dictatorships that are loyal to the West, but rather, a tsunami of rage that will spare no one. There is nothing more dangerous than aborted dreams, especially when those dreams may be the last chance for change.

Wadah Khanfar is former Director-General of Al Jazeera, and is currently Chairman of The Sharq Forum, an NGO promoting reform across the Arab world.

Wadah Khanfar: 為阿拉伯之春算筆賬

開羅——去年，埃及和突尼斯發生的事情終結了搖搖欲墜的舊秩序，為阿拉伯地區開啟了期待已久的新時代。但這個新時代會是什麼樣，目前仍是個有待觀察的問題，因為該地區的國家仍然面臨著諸多挑戰。

開始崩潰的舊秩序並不局限於從前的政治體制。該地區的整個價值體系——由獨裁體制所造就的政治文化——正在發生轉型。阿拉伯人身上流淌著一種專制強加給他們的自卑和軟弱，正是這種自卑和軟弱造成了絕望、憤怒、暴力和偏狹。

但無論如何，這一遠未完成的轉型——事實上，可能還將持續多年——已經開始產生成果了。如果沒有2011年的爆發，那麼阿拉伯人將度過又一個獨裁的年頭，大街小巷上流傳的將更多的是王朝傳承的問題。而這將加重普通阿拉伯人的自卑感，他們已經受夠了日益嚴重的壓力，政府官員及其裙帶資本家會繼續吮吸公帑。

阿拉伯媒體將繼續無原則地贊美該地區的總統及其家族，而事實上他們攫取了發展計劃的果實。教育將繼續停滯不前，因宗族、部落和宗教的不同而彼此割裂的阿拉伯社會將經歷越來越多的冤冤相報和暴力相向。每一年，成百上千北非年輕人將繼續冒著生命危險搭“死亡之舟”去國外尋找工作和更好地生活，他們之中的幸存者能夠成為歐洲的二等公民。而阿拉伯人的憤怒會達到前所未有的新高度，導致惡性的傷害和毀滅。

阿拉伯年輕人挽救了阿拉伯地區的命運。他們的責任心和團結重塑了人們的自信心。舊體制的反對者冷靜勇敢地示威，不同的觀點可以不帶成見地共存。

事實上，我們已經看到，伊斯蘭主義者、自由派和左派在反抗過程中走到了一起。我們看到，穆斯林和科普特教徒在開羅互相保護。在也門，我們看到當地部落成員在女諾貝爾獲獎者卡爾曼（Tawakel Karman）的帶領下為自由而抗爭。我們也看到，阿拉伯媒體開始成熟地就民主、憲政以及伊斯蘭在現代國家中的角色等問題展開爭論，而沒有像以前那樣散布假消息、做赤裸裸的宣傳。

但轉型不能就此停止。新舊政治勢力應該展開對話，就政治參與的規則達成一致。隨著人真正成為自己的主人，沒有參與到這一過程中的人最後將會發現，自己得不到政治權力。

該地區內外的其他國家應該歡迎阿拉伯之春。特別是，海灣合作委員會（GCC）成員國應該停止猶豫，支持革命後建立的新政府。歸根結底，阿拉伯地區所發生的變化有利於整個地區的經濟繁榮和政治穩定。

如今，突尼斯和埃及正在經歷嚴重的經濟危機。比如，在突尼斯爆發革命之前，該國360萬勞動人口中有50萬找不到工作，現在，這一數字上升到了70萬。近幾個月來，有90億美元資本從埃及出逃。但是，埃及總理詹祖裡透露，該國的阿拉伯“同胞”承諾給予埃及105億美元貸款和原著，但隻兌現了10億美元。

此外，G8向突尼斯和埃及承諾的350億美元到現在一分錢也沒有兌現。而在全球經濟危機的背景下，這筆錢在近期匯出的可能性十分渺茫。

該地區的新興民主體制迫切需要阿拉伯版的馬歇爾計劃——吸引基礎設施、工業和農業方面的大規模投資，並大力開發該地區的技術技能財富，從而提振就業。該計劃還應該鼓勵地區內商品和人事流動，這一點可以通過取消通關限制和妨礙雙邊和多邊貿易的復雜程序來實現。設立地區開發銀行以及建設從亞歷山大港到拉巴特的地中海高速鐵路有助於這一目標的實現。

但長期投資不能解決眼前的危機。埃及和突尼斯需要的即刻的存款和原著，新當選的領導人不能被迫向國外搖尾乞憐。在過去，海灣國家一直是支持埃及和突尼斯的。現在，在兩國進入自由轉型期時，繼續支持符合GCC的最高利益。

與此同時，美國和歐盟應該認識到當前變遷的性質和深度。阿拉伯公眾十分清楚西方和如今已被打倒的暴政體制之間的緊密關系，但他們並沒有顯示出意欲報復西方的傾向。

西方應該接受阿拉伯人民的意願，不要對變革的影響誇大其詞。西方必須支持阿拉伯世界的真正民主。如果阿拉伯之春夭折，那麼結果產生的將不會是忠於西方的獨裁體制，而是席卷所有人的憤怒風暴。世界上沒有比夢想夭折更危險的事情了，尤其是當這個夢想乃是激起變革的最後機會的時候。

作者為前半島電視台台長，現任致力於推進阿拉伯地區改革的非政府組織Sharq論壇主席。