In Syria, Regime Squelches All Attempts at Protest

Introduction

The wave of protests sweeping through the Arab world has not passed Syria by, but has sparked some demonstrations and attempts to organize large-scale protests. However, in contrast to the regimes of other Arab countries, the Syrian regime has so far managed to suppress the protest, and has in fact used the Middle East crisis to strengthen its position both inside and outside the country. The regime's firm grip is maintained through a years-long policy of attacking and squelching any opposition forces, which has been tightened even further in the recent weeks; a nearly absolute control of the media and the maintaining of media obscurity regarding events in the country; widespread deployment of the security forces and the harnessing of popular forces; and recent measures aimed at easing economic distress through financial benefits that severely stretch the national budget.

This report will review the regime's response to the Egypt events and to the awakening of the Syrian opposition.

Syria: The Egyptian Uprising Was Motivated by the Regime's Foreign Policy; No Motivation for Protests in Syria

The popular uprising in Egypt afforded Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad an opportunity to sideswipe Hosni Mubarak, his chief rival for the leadership of the Arab world, and at the same time to demonstrate the stability of his own regime. The main thrust of Syria's response to the protests has been to downplay the importance of economic distress and the demand for freedom as motivations for the uprising – aspects that are just as relevant in Syria – and to highlight Mubarak's cooperation with Israel and the U.S. against the resistance camp. This was depicted as the main reason for the people's dissatisfaction, even though it was not, in fact, one of the issues in the Egyptian protests. The Syrian regime thus wishes to convey the message, to its people and to other countries, that despite Syria's economic problems, the Syrian people have no cause to rebel, because their regime – unlike the Mubarak regime – faithfully represents their views and aspirations.

In a January 31 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Assad expressed confidence in the stability of his regime, which, he said, represented the national stance of the people.[1] Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem took a similar tack when he described the events in Egypt as "a revolution of the youth that is not about hunger or unemployment, but about the demand that Egypt play its role in the Middle East without [relying on] foreign intervention that has gravely harmed Egypt and continues to harm it."[2]

The Syrian government and non-government press openly supported the protests in Egypt and Tunisia, and did not hide its satisfaction over the ousting of presidents Mubarak and Ben Ali. The Al-Watan daily, which is close to the regime, followed its usual custom of spearheading the anti-Mubarak campaign.[3] Assad's political advisor, Buthayna Sha'ban, wrote in her weekly column in the government daily Teshreen: "The real reasons for the rage [of the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia] are complex, and cannot be reduced to [problems of] unemployment and livelihood. The Tunisian [citizen] Bu'aziz, who lit the fuse of the mass uprising in Tunisia, worked as a street vendor for years after completing his university studies, until [one day] the humiliation and indignity inflicted upon him by the forces of oppression drove him to despair and prompted him to set himself on fire... All the analyses and the official American responses focused on rising prices, poverty, unemployment and corruption. Not a single American official mentioned the connection [between the uprising] and the humiliating wars that have enraged the [Arab] masses over and over again...

"It is not difficult to identify [each of the] sensitive junctures at which the mounting rage of the Arabs rose by another notch, especially the sense of humiliation and helplessness felt by millions of young people at the incompetence and silence of their governments in the face of the disasters in Iraq, Palestine and Gaza. The decision makers in the U.S. and the West ignored these feelings, out of their desire to humiliate the Arabs, trusting the ability of the government apparatuses to suppress the voice of the masses demanding Arab solidarity."[4]

Former Lebanese MP Nasser Qandil, who is close to the Syrian regime, wrote in a similar vein. In an article titled "Only Arabism Can Protect [Us]," he stated: "A regime [like the Syrian regime], that coats itself in the armor of Arabism and places Palestine at the top of its agenda, is truly in tune with its public. It will not be surprised by events, and the peoples will not abandon it. The [Egyptian leaders] lost their wisdom – unlike the peoples – when they abandoned Palestine that served them as a shield, and renounced their Arabism, which is now renouncing them."[5]

Before Mubarak's resignation, numerous Syrian articles encouraged the Egyptians to continue their uprising until he stepped down. For example, columnist Ziad Abu Shawish wrote: "...[Mubarak] extended Israel and the U.S. the greatest service, and, through oppression and dictatorship, forced his people to maintain excellent relations with them, [though] the majority of Egyptians are opposed to these relations. He was the meekest of Arab presidents in his obedience to the U.S. and its economic dictates. Egypt will not be able to restore its Arab, regional and international role, and the goals of the revolution will not be achieved, as long as Mubarak and his gang remain in power..."[6]

The Al-Watan daily called for a complete political overhaul in Egypt, urging to amend the constitutional articles dealing with presidential and parliamentary elections, grant freedom of speech, allow the establishment of political parties, revoke the emergency law, limit the president's term in office, abolish hereditary rule, and sever Egypt's ties to U.S. policy.[7] The daily ignored the fact that most of these demands are similar to the demands presented to the Syrian regime by its opposition.

Several days after the outbreak of the Egyptian protests, Al-Watan columnist 'Issa Al-Ayyoubi announced the dawning of the "post-Mubarak era": "Egypt is [already] living in the post-Mubarak era in terms of its popular, social and political [situation]... and also in regional and international terms... The calls of [Arab leaders] to maintain Egypt's security and stability do not necessarily mean that Hosni Mubarak is the guarantee for this security and stability... If he were, the events [we are witnessing] in Cairo and in [other Egyptian] cities would not be taking place... The statements of European officials and the U.S. administration should not be construed as continued support for Mubarak's rule, but as preparing the ground for the coming [era]..."[8]

The U.S. – An Ingrate and a Traitor

The Syrian press did not mince words in its criticism of the U.S. and the Western reaction to the events in Egypt. The main criticisms were that by abandoning Mubarak, its longstanding and most loyal ally, the U.S. had once again proven itself untrustworthy, and also that America's claim to be the defender of liberty and democracy was mere pretense, since it had supported Mubarak's dictatorship for 30 years.

'Issam Dari, columnist for the daily Al-Watan, wrote: "... [The U.S.'s threat to freeze economic aid to Egypt was an act of] ingratitude toward a regime that for 30 years had carried out its orders without hesitating, griping, or questioning their benefit... Would the Egyptian president not be justified in repeating the famous words of Rome's Julius Caesar, when his closest [friend] stabbed him in the back – 'Et tu Brute?'...

"Throughout last week's events in the Egyptian street, the American administration seemed to be sitting on the fence, waiting to see who would emerge victorious so it could declare its support for the victor and exploit him most effectively, as it has been doing in Egypt for the past three decades... The American administrations [have always] abandoned every ally, even those who were important to them, when their time ran out, and immediately began to court the next candidate for head of state, in order to turn him into an ally to carry out their wishes... The U.S. does not defend its allies in their hour of need and during the 'days of rage' [held by] the people. All it does [at such times] is look for another ally..."[9]

Teshreen columnist 'Izz Al-Din Darwish warned the readers not to be fooled by U.S. President Barack Obama's calls for Mubarak's resignation, since the U.S. "is surreptitiously and openly, from all directions and by every means, trying to contain the events [in Egypt]... It must be taken into consideration that what the Americans, including President Obama, are saying about Egypt and the popular uprising [there] is not the same as what they are thinking, or what they doing clandestinely to immediately achieve [their aims]..."[10]

Writing in the daily Al-Watan, columnist 'Issa Al-Ayyoubi wrote: "The West's concern does not stem from its awareness of the [situation in Egypt] – the oppression, the [lack of] social justice, the corruption and the lack of democracy. They have [long] been aware of the deteriorating situation, and have absorbed millions of Egyptians who fled the poverty in their own country. The [West's] main concern, as indicated by its statements, is for Israel's security... They are not concerned over the extremists rising to power [either], since they know that involving religious leaders in politics was Mubarak's own strategy, aimed at consolidating his regime... All the manifestations of religious extremism [in Egypt] are the product of this policy of corruption, oppression, and cronyism, and of exploiting the religious institutions for the regime's benefit... The problem that worries the West is not just that Israel has lost its most effective security barrier [i.e., Mubarak's Egypt]... but [the fact that] this development heralds the [imminent] fall of other leaders who guaranteed Israel's military, political, and economic security. [Now this country] will once again be besieged from all directions other than the Mediterranean sea..."

However, Al-Ayyoubi stressed that the ouster of Mubarak "does not mean that the [West's] interests will be endangered, but [only] that it will have to forge a new worldview. The West and its intelligentsia have enough time to thoroughly assess [the situation, and to understand]... that the peoples of the region are not hostile. The imposing of rulers upon them – that is what provokes their hostility..."[11]

The Egyptian Revolution – A Victory for the Resistance Camp that Should Worry the West

The success of the Egyptian people in ousting president Mubarak following 18 days of mass demonstrations was depicted in the Syrian press as a victory for the resistance camp. Samira Al-Masalma, editor of the government daily Teshreen, wrote: "Yesterday was the greatest turning point in the life of the [Arab] nation, not just in Egypt, but in the Arab homeland as a whole... The new Egyptian revolution proved that no one can change the pan-Arab identity and the Arab character of Egypt... which was taken from us and held hostage for 35 years... No one, no matter how powerful, can place Egypt in the ranks of those who are opposed to Arabness, to resistance, and to the national and pan-Arab values..."[12]

In the same daily, Nasser Qandil wrote, "At the very least, the [Egyptian] revolution has managed to turn Egypt, formerly a cause of concern for the forces of resistance, into a factor that should worry the true axis of evil in the region – [namely the axis] run by Israel, and behind it the U.S."[13]

Columnist Ziad Abu Shawish did not hide his joy over the ouster of Mubarak, and wrote: "It is only fair that a despotic regime like the one run by Mubarak for 30 years should end this way... From now on, the Arab citizen will be proud to belong to the [Arab] nation that created revolutions like those in Egypt and Tunisia... The celebrations of the Arab citizens from the Mediterranean Sea to the [Persian] Gulf prove just how much our Arab nation has been yearning for the revival of some of our dreams, which have been abandoned by the rulers of humiliation and subjugation..."[14]

In addition to joy over the fall of Mubarak's regime, writers in the Syrian press voiced concern that the ramifications of his ouster would only affect Egypt's domestic policy and not its foreign policy. After the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces, which assumed control of the country after Mubaraks' resignation, issued its fourth statement, according to which Egypt would continue to honor its international agreements, including the peace treaty with Israel, Al-Watan editor Waddah 'Abd Rabbo wrote: "[This statement aims to] hint to the world that what has happened in Egypt is not a revolution, but an intifada that reflects the people's anger over its regime's economic and social policy... The military has yet to act on the demands of the people, and it was unjustifiably quick in assuring Tel Aviv, Washington, and everyone [else] who expressed concern for Israel's security and safety." 'Abd Rabbo called on the Egyptian people to remain in Al-Tahrir Square "until all demands are met, not only [the demand] to replace Mubarak, but [the demand to replace] the entire [Mubarak] regime, which is committed to foreign [powers] and is incapable of realizing the economic and political aspirations of the people... We must be wary of those lying in wait for the revolution who aim to hijack it in hopes of turning it into a short-lived intifada..."[15]

Calls for Syrian "Day of Rage" Go Unanswered

Endnotes: