A look at the rivalries and dynamics driving the
continuing unrest in Syria
By Marie-Josée Ryan
Before the Arab Spring, most
people in the West generally knew little about Syria. Today, as the conflict in
Syria intensifies, it gets more exposure in the media. Still, does the average Westerner have the background to
understand the main issues causing the conflict? Information about the current situation in Syria has frequently been used without its historical and local context. Below is an
attempt to reconcile the pieces of the puzzle with a native
Syrian and economics professor, who more than a decade ago employed game theory
models to narrate the civil conflict in Lebanon. Moreover, before the
conflict in Syria began, he spent two years at Harvard University’s Center for
Middle Eastern Studies preparing a book on the unmaking of the nation-states of
the Near East.
Before his departure to the
United States in 2009, Mark Tomass was an economics professor at UNYP and the Director of its Graduate and Undergraduate Business Programs.
UNYPRESS: Could you briefly explain what is going on in Syria
now?
Mark Tomass: There are two forces seeking the toppling the current
government. One is a movement to construct a civil society that will transform
Syria from a police state to a more open and pluralistic political system.
UNYPRESS: And the other force?
MT: The others are multiple groups that seek to transform
Syria from the secular state that it is now to an Islamic state. These forces
comprise the Sunni Muslim Brothers, whose uprising in 1979-1982 was quelled by
the government. Today, the Muslim Brothers are supported by Turkey, who seeks
to establish a government in Syria in its own image.
UNYPRESS: Can you explain the violence we are
observing right now in Syria?
MT: This violence is a result of the regular Syrian
army’s attempt to regain control of certain Sunni quarters in the city of Homs
in central Syria, and in the countryside around Damascus.
UNYPRESS: How do Syrians establish their identity?
President voting on constitutional referendum |
UNYPRESS: Which of these prevailing groups is in control of
Syria?
MT: The real power structures are dominated exclusively
by the Alawites, who are also secular. They endorse a Sufi, or moderate version of
Sunni Islam as the official religion in Syria. Themselves, the Alawites are considered by
Sunni clerics and laypeople as heretics because of their deification of Ali,
the Prophet Mohammad’s cousin and son-in-law, because of their belief in
transmigration, and because they do not take Muslim religious obligations
literally.
UNYPRESS: How were living conditions during the period of
Alawite rule?
MT: In the past forty years, due to improved health
conditions and a high birth rate, Syria’s population quadrupled. While absolute
conditions improved, Syria’s relative standing in the world declined. It
slipped on the World Bank’s classification scale from a Higher Middle Income
Country to a Lower Middle Income Country. Much of that is due to direct or
indirect wars with Israel through Lebanon, low-intensity civil conflict,
persistent Western embargoes, a puritanical religious culture that excludes
women from the labor force, and indeed not in the least the failure of the
institutions of the state to promote economic development. Generally, Alawite rule was not able to transform
Syrian society into a secular society, to the contrary because of them
being perceived as heretics, there has been a reaction against their rule that drove
more people towards religiosity. Nobody was allowed to publicly criticize
government officials. Accordingly, the government attracted corrupt people of
all kinds. However, for security considerations, many who were in highest echelons of
power were not only Alawites, but members of the extended ruling family as
well. Some of them misappropriated public assets and used the power of the
state to create monopolies that benefited them.
UNYPRESS: The Alawite regime is not going to give up
power because, if I understand correctly, they will be persecuted?
MT: Yes, they are afraid of being massacred. And again, justifiably, because it happened many
times in the past millennium. Today’s
Muslim Brothers took advantage of the “Arab Spring” to topple the government. They want to turn the "Arab Spring" into their own revolution to
depose the Alawites from power, and I think that is the source of the problem.
A secular conflict mutated into a sectarian one. It is Lebanon revisited.
MT: The Alawites would not want to relinquish power, because for a millennium, they have been persecuted
by the Sunni orthodoxy, whose religious authorities issued fatwas, or religious
decrees, against them for their alleged heresies. Those fatwas proclaimed that
fighting them should be every Muslim’s priority before they fight the
Christians and before they fight the Jews. They must fight them because they
are presumed to pose the greatest danger to Islam. Therefore, these Alawites,
who have practically been ruling Syria since 1966, are very much despised by
the majority of Sunni Muslims in Syria.
UNYPRESS: Speaking of warfare, would you consider that Syria now is in a state of a civil
war, or coming close to that state?
MT: Technically,
if you want to define a civil war, you would have to say there are two or more
parties, where each is controlling a certain region that they use as a base to
fight each other. The Turkish government and their Syrian Muslim Brothers
allies wanted to establish a protected zone to the south of Alexandretta, where the latter along with the
army defectors could use as a base to launch attacks against the Syrian army. I
suspect that the United States did not endorse that notion, and that is why it
did not materialize. It is also possible that the Turkish army decided not to enter
into a direct confrontation with the Syrian army, who had reportedly deployed
tanks along the border to confront such possible Turkish advance into Syrian
territories.
UNYPRESS: What was the extent of the “Free Syrian Army”?
MT: The armed groups, including the army defectors, who
are referring to themselves as the “Free Syrian Army” did briefly control
certain parts of cities, such as in the suburbs of Damascus and some parts of
Homs. According to their leader, the defectors are exclusively Sunnis. If their control would have been extended for a longer period, one could say
that the situation would have entered into a civil war phase. But, the
military campaign that the government launched two weeks ago, after the Security Council
vote, have almost succeeded in regaining control. As a result, the rebel groups are
not holding significant territories for me to say it is technically a
civil war. However, that situation could change, and we may enter into a civil war
phase.
UNYPRESS: Why didn’t President Bashar al-Assad fight corruption
earlier and move towards a more democratic rule?
MT: At the beginning when he took power, he suggested in
his inaugural speech everything that he is suggesting now. He promised that he
would move Syria to a more transparent society and a multi-party political
system. But after he took power, there was the September 11, 2001, followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the assassination of the
former Prime Minister of Lebanon in 2005, and the subsequent ousting of Syria from
Lebanon, and the 2006 war. All of these incidents made him feel that he should
prioritize security over granting political freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment