G.W.Bush was tested about his foreign affairs credentials or ignorance in 99, when he seemed to be the annoited new president. When asked in a TV interview “Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?”, “The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected - not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that’s good news for the sub-continent,” the Republican candidate offered. Good news, but not an answer, and the interviewer insisted: “Can you name him?”, “General. I can’t name the general. General” was all Mr Bush had to offer.
This interview was hillarious and made the round of TV comdedy shows who were looking for new material since Cliton’s Lewinsky jokes were becoming too old. I was thinking, another 4 years of entairtaining jokes while having lower taxes and a dumm president; who won’t wage any war since he declared he is not interested in foreign politics. Gore was too boring and too pro-Israel.
Anyway, despite his ignorance, world leaders rushed to shake hands with Bush. Since he became the new World Leader, they were probably thinking he inherited some of his father’s team and policies. He quicky started classifying leaders as good or bad, but his ranch became the envy of so many presidents. It was not because of Bush’s charm, it was because of what he represents.
Now let’s introduce Bashar Assad, another son of President sorry dictator. Very inexperienced and a political novice born with a gold spoon in the mouth. He is the son of Hafez Al Assad who was a very shrewd dictator who controlled the country coming out of nowhere in a very short time. He ruled the country ruthlessly for 30 years while making sure the international community respected him and Syria. He knew how to make the maximum gain politically out of disasters and how to play the international political game pleasing all sides. He was the dictator and his staff were tools to implement the policies. So policy making was centralized and sound. I am not defending dictatorship here or rejecting democratic values. I am trying to explain the differences between a bad past and a nightmare present. I was not a fan of H. Assad but he was in control and no one internally dared confronting him or dreamed of using him to his advantage.
Hafez rejected passing power to his ruthless and corrupt brother Rifaat who was kicked out in 84. He was training his son Bacel to take over. His star began to shine in the mid 80s being an equesterian champion and starting a military and political career. He was a powerful commanding personality like his dad was. Then came the big shocking news of his death in a car accident in March 94. Was it an accident or a foul play? it is a still a mistery, many people benefited from his death, accusations could range from Israel to relatives to other officers who saw him as an obstacle to enrich and gain more power.
I remember visiting Syria and Lebanon in Summer 94, his death and posters were omnipresent. Even university students were grateful for Bacel since they got an exceptional round of exams in his comamoration to try and redeem themselves for failed courses, never mind that it killed their summer. It was pretty disgusting to mourn a son of a president that way, even more so in Lebanon a different country.
Hafez made sure only Bacel was the legitimate inheriter to avoid power struggles between siblings (like what happened to him), mideast and history is full of family infighting over power. So Bashar was rushed back after his brother’s death to fulfill the family duties. But he did not have the personality, charisma or the training to do that. That made him an easy target and prey for the power vultures who were feeding on the crumbs of Assad Sr, with Jr they can have much more room and easier time manipulating a weak president. The dad’s tragic misjudgment was to put the trust in him. The other fatal mistake was to keep the same crew around, I guess Assad did not analyse the people who worked for him, they were ready to obey his orders, but with a new captain it is a different situation.
A weak president who is at war with the world and in a very messy position won’t have time to stand up to any relative or members of the ruling clan. Priority is security and preserving power while sucking the country out of its resources and draining it in a quagmire of problems is ok.
When Assad died in June 2000, people were worried about uprisings and open power struggles and divisions. It did not materialize very soon. The media painted a very postive image of Bashar and his vision and determination to lead the country into a modern era that Syria desperatly need. Assad Sr killed the country economic power to feed his generals and to impovrish the country and make it easier to rule. With Bashar coming to power, need to reverse that trend to gain popularity and avoid catastrophy.
He had a good honeymoon and he was generous in giving rosy speeches and allowing cosmetic freedom. European leaders welcomed him showing willingness to turn a new page on Syria and help it achieve its potential. Afterall Syria is strategically important and a good economy there benefits everyone.
But a year later, in 2001, signs of returning to bad habits began to ahow and the Syrian spring was put to rest in no time. However important international and regional events were developing and Syria was less exposed. No one really payed attention to the hard line that was building in there. However extending Lahoud’s term in sept 2004 despite the international consensus sparked the divorce and the beginning of isolation.
The Harriri murder accelerated that and it pointed out Bashar’s weaknesses and his lack of political maneouvring skills. It also exposed how primitve and retarded the people in charge of designing foreign policies are. People like Sharaa and Mouallem who have no recognition skills whatsoever of how the world and the region changed are big liabilities, so is the mediocre media…
The latest Isreali-Lebanese war and its aftermath, specially the horrendous president behaviour and his inability to improve things and turn them around, shows Syria’s disastrous situation. It emphasized Syria’s vulnerability and inability to defend itself or Lebanon. Declaring victory over Lebanon’s grave and putting obstacles to stability in the region is a no-no. The major political losses in the last five years include losing the negotiational position and edge of the Clinton’s days, Syrian-US relationship falling apart and reaching unprecendented low levels, losing most of the European friends. Being in multiple UN resolutions and condemnation and in the center of Harriri’s murder investigation, being forced out of Lebanon, Israelis planes visiting Assad palaces with no resistance or defense. Last but not least losing the support of arab countries that used to be a good ally over the last 20 year: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They helped float the system to survive the last 2 years along with Israel. Their rulers are really livid about Assad’s latest speeches and gaffes. He is trying desperatly to change what he said and wiggle his way out of it but the damage was done.
Buidling trust or preserving it in this region is so difficult and complicated. But Assad is great in doing just the opposite and increasing suspicious and open hostilities. He has put Syria out of the arab world and in the mercy of Iran and its lunatic president. We got nothing from Iran except problems and empty support. He is slowly turning Syria into an Iranian political province.
This president is a disgrace to Syria and his real job should be in some comedy show or a writer in a sorry magazine. I guess he watched too much Baath TV growing up and believed the lies that his dad was brainwashing the people with. He should have been more active in giving school speeches since now his speeches spell disaster for Syria. It is all your fault Ammar!!!
I think the solution is not in changing the behaviour of the regime like the US wants, but rather in changing the head of the regime. Syria needs a fresh positive external policies, a new way of dealing with new realities, it needs a 180 turn. We need to be active not isolated in the arab and international community, we need to be a good peaceful neighbour. Bashar is not willing and not capable of doing that. a revolution or a complete change of regime could be disastrous and very bloody, not to mention threatens the neighbors including Israel. The quickest way to overhaul the system is to have a coup d’etat. The US and CIA have a great experience in that, they have intalled a lot of arab rulers, one more won’t hurt.
Ghazi Kanaan was a good candidate but he was killed mainly because of being an internal threat to the Assads. Syria has so many generals: Ali Habib, Ali Aslan, Ali Haidar, Ali Douba etc…one officer (no need for him to be known, the more mysterious the better)who could command respect, and would open up the country, free prisoners and introduce gradual reforms, change the bad advisor and policy makers crew, lower corruption and breakup the alliance from Iran would be very welcome.
Someone like Musharaf is the solution, no need for Bush to know the name. But such a general would be very useful to the region and would give Bush a symbolic victory. It would allow Israel to reopen negotiations with Syria, help stabilize Iraq, give Lebanon a breathing room, weaken radicals and extremists. We need someone to help Syria shine not be the regional trouble maker.
This change would be a welcome october surprise…and a step in the right direction. Hopefully someone is reading this…I know a lot of my Syrian friends would reject what I am hoping for but we need to be realistic. Any new face would be an improvment, we can’t afford to be in the wrong side of history.
