Rafif Jouejati
As horrific as the death toll in Syria is, the impact of Assad’s atrocities spreads far wider. Some 22 million Syrians are caught in the crossfire of the regime’s desperate attempt to crush all civilian dissent, destroy communities and local councils, and hold on to power in the face of a popular uprising that has turned into an increasingly sophisticated and bearded armed opposition. Foreign jihadists practically found welcome mats at Syria’s doorstep as Assad allowed (and encouraged, as some maintain) rampant chaos to spread throughout the country. Meanwhile, Assad and his forces treat medical personnel, teachers, and relief workers as though they pose the same threat as defected soldiers brandishing AK-47s. To this regime, journalists and nonviolent activists are just as threatening as the Free Syrian Army’s limited supply of rocket-propelled grenades.
While the carnage has steadily increased in Syria, the West’s narrative has not changed: it does not want to arm the opposition for fear that sophisticated weapons that could destabilize the area might end up in the “wrong hands.” But those weapons already are, and have long been, in the dreaded “wrong hands”: those of the Assad regime, which is doing its best to destabilize the area, and succeeding in doing so. We Syrians know all too well that that the actual “wrong hands” are those of the chemical-weapons-yielding dictatorship that stockpiled them for domestic use. As this conflict wears on, the armed opposition is growing increasingly extremist in the absence of an alternative that would enable average people to defend themselves and their families, one that would enable the defected army to make definitive advances, and allow children to eat and go to school.
Today, Westerners seem to see Syria through an increasingly simplistic and distorting lens. Political analysts and pundits, many of whom appear to have learned all they know about Syria from Wikipedia, glommed onto the terms “civil war” and “sectarian conflict” early on to characterize the situation. They want to view Syria through the same lens with which they view their own societies: African-American, Latino/Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, and Other. These overly simplified classifications help the West fit people of all backgrounds into neat little boxes. Such intellectual laziness only offers a quick sedative, a little respite from the nagging truth that more than 75,000 people have been killed; that hundreds of men, women, and children across Syria are raped and otherwise sexually tortured every day; or that missiles and cluster bombs have a pesky way of finding their targets at bakery lines. Children are routinely forcibly displaced and frequently targeted by snipers. These atrocities are committed without any specific sectarian agenda in mind; they are committed not because there is an Alawi-Shiite conspiracy or because the Sunnis have been patiently awaiting “their turn.” Let us point the finger squarely and unequivocally at the perpetrators: these crimes against humanity are being committed by the Assad regime because the Assad family and security apparatus cannot fathom a country governed by anyone else, let alone free Syrians.
Millions of Syrians in the opposition continue to classify themselves as Syrians—no more, no less. We do not identify ourselves as Christian, Druze, or Ismaili. We are not divided along Alawite-Sunni lines, nor do we want to send minorities to the lions, as it were. We look at our revolution through a very different lens. We fear the regime’s sectarian narrative, developed over more than 40 years of tyranny. We don’t over-generalize or pigeonhole our compatriots. We make a point to continually reinforce what we have been saying for the past two years: our revolution is not about replacing one dictator with another; our revolution is about freedom, dignity, and democracy for all Syrians. To ignore our voices, or pass them off as naïve, is to ignore the will of most Syrians.
What should be done to stop the human hemorrhaging in Syria? At this point, any sort of forward-moving action in Syria would be a welcome change from the lethargy of empty promises, unfulfilled pledges, and hollow threats. The international community has mostly sat on its hands for the past two years, although it does occasionally (and loudly) condemn violence and proclaim the need for a negotiated political settlement. The United States has repeatedly claimed to support the opposition, and recently sent a new shipment of night-vision goggles to combatants who deal with Scud missiles and whose primary responsibility has become to pull the bodies of children from under the rubble of what used to be apartment buildings. The European Union is divided on what to do in Syria, with some members advocating to arm the opposition in light of the regime’s use of chemical weapons; still others continue to quake in fear of the growing number of beards in Syria.
I don’t know who coined the phrase, “Count our dead, not our beards,” but it has spread throughout activist communities in Syria. And it’s absolutely on target. The international community needs to come out of its paralysis and take responsibility for the fact that this humanitarian catastrophe has grown under its watch. The international community, in seeking a negotiated political settlement, must help create a framework in which the killing stops, Syrians are repatriated, and the country can be rebuilt. Failure to do this, and failure to create a mechanism of enforcement that has thus far been missing, only embolden Assad and other tyrants to kill and displace entire populations with impunity. The world’s red lines need to be firm and not subject to frequent re-interpretation. As Shadi Hamid has poignantly asked, why is there a red line on chemical weapons but not on 70,000 deaths?34
France and the U.K., which might be inclined to arm the more secular elements in the opposition, are waiting for President Obama to stop hiding behind his “leading from behind” policy. The international community can enforce “no kill zones” or no-fly zones to try to stem the river of blood. The international community, particularly the United States, can pressure Iraq into prohibiting Iranian shipments of weapons, and enforce sanctions. The international community can make good on its pledges of more than $1.5 billion in aid that is still not reaching intended recipients. Since the consensus seems to be that a negotiated settlement is what it will take to stop the killing, the international community should negotiate with Assad to establish humanitarian corridors that could be monitored by U.N. personnel with assurances from all armed parties that these monitors will not be attacked. Finally, the E.U., United States, and Arab League can responsibly provide defensive weapons that tip the balance of power both on the ground and in the air, and minimize the risk of having another 100,000 or 1,000,000 dead by this time next year.
And while the international community seeks a negotiated political settlement, we must keep in mind that Assad violated the Arab League initiative of 2011 and the Annan Peace Plan in 2012, then rejected the Brahimi Plan in 2013. If the international community fails to take action before 2014, and continues to let Assad win the game of “chicken” with chemical weapons, the post-World War II vows of “never again” may be reduced to “uh-oh.”