State Senator Black Travels To Syria; Puts Arms Around Al-Assad?

Before I get started on this, State Senator Dick Black is a tremendous man.  I have immense respect for him, his integrity, his deep commitment to his Catholic faith in the face of critics.

So because of his integrity — and because I know his support for al-Assad is firmly rooted in certain principles — this will not be a screed.

Merely a disagreement.

First, let’s start with the dishonorable and despicable expected comments from State Senator Dick Saslaw, courtesy of the Washington Post:

Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) joked about Black’s tendency to step into controversial topics in Virginia and abroad.

“Most people would not be concerned about Dick Black going to Syria,” Saslaw said. “The biggest concern would probably be Dick Black coming back from Syria.”

Alan Suderman over at the Associated Press (and courtesy of the Daily Press) has more.  Of course, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth being expressed in certain Democratic quarters about the visit being disrespectful, running counter to Obama’s foreign policy and so forth… one can only stress that the genie was uncorked a long time ago, and Democrats didn’t seem to have too many quibbles about it then.

pelosi_assad

That was back in 2006, when Democrats felt entirely free to contradict the maxim “politics stops at the water’s edge” in favor of appearing more enlightened than the Neanderthals running the Bush White House.  Perhaps it is better not to discuss “Hanoi” Jane either.

But I digress… because color me patriotic, but I really do believe that politics does stop at the water’s edge.

Let’s get to the substance of why Black believes the Syrian government deserves an outspoken voice.  The Alawite-led Syrian government is indeed a dictatorship, and while its list of human rights abuses is long and its repression in instances of violence is disturbing, Black is correct in the sense that the Alawites have indeed offered more political freedoms to Christians and other minorities than most Arab countries.  When you look at the repressions against Coptic Christians in Egypt, the civil war in Lebanon, the condition of what few Armenians remain in Turkey, or the civil rights on minorities Islamic sects (much less Christians) in Saudi Arabia?  Pre-war Syria is a practical paragon compared to other Arab countries in some respects.

Much of this has to do with the Ottomanized nature of Syria and Ottoman concepts of religious freedom.  Americans might not perceive it as such because for us, religious freedom means what Jefferson intended it to mean — a pluralist society where people are free to express their ideas, thoughts, and beliefs without coercion or persecution.  In Islamic societies, and particularly in the tradition of the Ottoman Empire, freedom of religion meant freedom from religion.  Even in Israel, it is against the law to proselytize (i.e. one cannot go to the Western Wall and attempt to convert Jews to Christianity).  This is the tradition of most of the Middle East, and in the wake of the Ottoman collapse, this tradition of community and what Westerners might identify as “tribal” communities (but far more complex than this).  In Lebanon, for instance, this centered around mutasarrifiya or provinces that identified along confessional lines.  This idea of freedom from religion, or freedom from ideas, that cemented Ottoman society for so long was simply adopted by the French and British mandates because frankly, they worked.

For Christian communities long held in the minority, this holds special significance, especially after the Armenian experience and the departure of the Ottoman Turks, where many Christians were persecuted before, during, and after their departure.  When the mutasarrifiya system began breaking down in Lebanon in the 1950s and finally in the mid-1970s, the result was horrific, not only for the Lebanese in general but for the Maronite Christians in particular — extending very much into Orthodox and Druze communities.  These are wounds that have yet to heal, partly exacerbated by the Lebanese diaspora and partly exacerbated by the causes of that diaspora.

It is the first part of this equation — the diaspora and persecution of Syrian Christians — that motivates Senator Black, in my opinion.  The second part — the causes that create the conditions for persecution — is perhaps the part that Black ignores in an effort to treat symptoms without addressing cures.   In the latter half of this argument is the key, and there is perhaps no greater roadblock for this cure than the imposition of the Ba’athist Alawite-led regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Now this is no particular critique of al-Assad himself.  Bashar al-Assad is a Western educated man, one that was never groomed for leadership by his father (his older brother held that distinction; Bassel al-Assad having died in a car accident in 1994).  The Alawite regime, though imperfect, works just as an Ottomanized province should.  Western democratic norms aren’t precisely a tradition of Arab culture, and Western democracy — as the Obama administration is painfully learning in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Gulf States — cannot be imposed either from above or below.  It is a cultural process, grown incrementally, that must reflect and respect the traditions of those who live in such cultures.

Yet al-Assad inherits a regime that, though markedly less tyrannical than her neighbors in some respects, has a horrible track record on human rights abuses.  The Syrian government is not democratic at all.  What is more, as the cultures of many Arab states continues to grapple with both post-Cold War and post-Ottoman realities, technology has grown exponentially in this time span.

This is critically important to understanding Syria and the Middle East overall, because it strikes right at the heart of the old mutasarrifiya system and the concept of freedom from religion.  If you live in one village and your neighbor lives in another, one might be Sunni Islam and the other Orthodox Christian.  Before the advent of cell phones and technology, both villages could co-exist in relative ignorance of the other — beyond the fact that one was aware the other existed, there was no direct encounter.  The al-Assad regime prized this above all things, not only because it was expedient to keep the peace, but because it also secured their ability to maintain power.  When these interactions occurred, not only did it pose a political threat to the regime… but it also created a certain awareness that historians have seen play out time and time again in post-imperial landscapes: Bosnia perhaps being the best example.

In the past (and this is where we begin breaking with Black in toto), the Alawites had a very simple solution for political expression: arrest and torture, a very Ottoman solution, to be sure.  Uprisings?  Crush them… as Hafez al-Assad did in Hama where 20,000 to 40,000 civilians were massacred in 1982.

Such is the DNA of the al-Assad government.

So in one sense, Black’s sentiments are pure.  Protecting Christian communities against sectarian violence is a genuine concern, one that is shared not only by the Christian communities of Syria, but by the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land as well as the Vatican.

The question remains as to whether or not the al-Assad regime in its current form is truly a protector, or merely holding these Christian communities hostages?

al-assad_600pxThe Lebanese experience with the Syrian government is instructive here.  Divide and conquer is an old habit, and the Syrians did this for 15 years during the Lebanese Civil War and another 10 after it until the Cedar Revolution drove them out.  Lebanon’s Christian communities watched with impotence as Shia Muslims and Hezbollah steadily gained size, population, pre-eminence, and most of all power as a proxy “state within a state” — all paid for by Syrian and Iranian proxies.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

This proxy power contained within Hezbollah seeks one goal: wiping Israel off the map.  The 2006 South Lebanon War saw the IDF absorb its first setback in a long and glorious history, unable to stop the rain of rockets descending from a Syrian and Iranian proxy agent.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

Hezbollah has succeeded in pushing back southern Lebanon’s Christians in the absence of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) with little to no regard for the Christian minorities there.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

Hezbollah is the main destabilizing factor in Lebanon, preventing the Taif Accords from fully expressing themselves in a free, democratic, confessional Lebanon.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

The Alawite regime in true form and in the spirit of dealing with insurrections in the manner of Hama attempted to do the very same thing in Homs.  It didn’t work — and 10,000 Syrians of various backgrounds — respecting neither sect nor ethnicity nor religious belief — perished.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

Free expression has never enjoyed its day in the sun under the Alawite regime.  Mass demonstrations were banned until 2011.  Women and ethnic minorities struggle to find a place in the Alawite power structure.  Political prisoners are a feature, not a bug of Syrian governance.  Though hypothetically secular in nature, the president of the Syrian Arab Republic must be a Muslim.  Freedom of movement is highly restricted even before the Syrian Civil War.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

The use of cluster munitions, chemical weapons, indiscriminate shelling, the specific murder of young boys and of entire families by the Syrian Army, the torture of medical personnel, snipers indiscriminately shooting civilians, the use of sexual violence against women and children (and men), the introduction of thermobaric munitions by the Russians.

This is what we put our arms around when we support al-Assad.

Lest one think that the link between Hezbollah and Black’s support for Syria is a bridge too far, Black did indeed meet with Michel Aoun, a former Lebanese general and prime minister who is in coalition with — guess who? — Hezbollah.  Christian parties in Lebanon have warned about the Aoun-Hezbollah alliance as a mere power play and little else, but this has not deterred a soul in the pro-Syrian camp.

In fact, if the concern of Maronite Christians (and Christian minorities overall) is high on the list of American observers of the Middle East, the selection and advice of pro-Hezbollah elements allied to Syria gaining preference over Christian voices seems an odd one.

The fact of the matter is that al-Assad is no paladin set on a path to rescuing what remains of Arabic civilization in the face of Western pressure or Islamist violence.  In fact, ISIL has been largely circumspect about taking on the Syrians directly with notable exception (Palmyra) where applicable, mostly because the Syrians are far from spent in terms of force projection.  Nor is al-Assad this mythical defender of the rights of Christian minorities.  At best, al-Assad remains the better of a list of very bad options.

One should set aside Black’s sudden resignation as Cruz co-chair in Virginia.  One suspects that someone saw a sticky wicket, got a phone call from the press, and did the requisite covering of backside in such conditions (and perhaps not in that order).  One can also set aside motive, as there are many individuals deeply concerned about the welfare and well-being of Christian minorities in the Middle East.

…but al-Assad is not the answer to this problem.

More to the point, there is the principle of politics stopping at the water’s edge.  As an American, there ought to be a certain patriotism regardless of who is in office regarding American interest and American action overseas.  Do we support everything our government does?  Perhaps not… and perhaps we should not.  Those are the hallmarks of a healthy democratic environment.

One understands the power of realpolitik in an era where an American monopoly of force can no longer be maintained credibly, as Putin all too readily demonstrated in Syria and the Ukraine.  Sometimes you have to cut cards with the devil.  Sometimes we cannot stop every tragedy.  Yet in that calculus, condoning the regime is rarely a good idea.

This is the cardinal mistake that Black commits with regards to Syria, and specifically in support of Bashar al-Assad — a man whose government has engaged in multiple human rights abuses, has persecuted Christians and minorities, who represses free thought and free expression, who sponsors Hezbollah, whose official position vis a vis Israel is one of annihilation and not co-existence, and who — despite all the promise of Western forms of democratization — has delivered on very few of them.

Of course, this is not an argument for any particular solution (though I have some thoughts).   Nor is this an argument that a future Syrian peace should not involve al-Assad.  By the sword, al-Assad’s Ba’athist government has won a seat at the table.  The Syrian Arab Republic will more than likely be the tip of the spear against any future solution regarding ISIL.  The so-called moderate Arabs — aligned with Turkey and affiliated with al-Qaeda — will remain a serious ethical dilemma for the United States and Turkey as the Syrian Civil War winds to its conclusion.

…but let’s not pretend that al-Assad is a second Saladin.  Our fear should be, in the wake of a rising Iran and a revanchist Turkey, the Syrians might very well see themselves in possession of the most experienced and battle hardened military in the region and fulfill those dreams at the expense of American allies — not Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but Israel and Kurdistan.  Or perhaps the Syrians revisit their claims on Mount Lebanon?

Black is well intentioned.  I have immense respect for the man and his judgment.  In this instance, I believe Black to be sorely mistaken.

Сейчас уже никто не берёт классический кредит, приходя в отделение банка. Это уже в далёком прошлом. Одним из главных достижений прогресса является возможность получать кредиты онлайн, что очень удобно и практично, а также выгодно кредиторам, так как теперь они могут ссудить деньги даже тем, у кого рядом нет филиала их организации, но есть интернет. http://credit-n.ru/zaymyi.html - это один из сайтов, где заёмщики могут заполнить заявку на получение кредита или микрозайма онлайн. Посетите его и оцените удобство взаимодействия с банками и мфо через сеть.