Syrian Refugees: Don't Renew the War

Matthew R. Steven, a researcher at York University in Canada, has a report at Syria Comment detailing the views of Syrian refugees in Irbid, The city is the second largest in Jordan and now hosts 160,000 Syrian refugees. Stevens emphasizes the difficulty of knowing the “representativeness” of opinions he sampled, but conveys opposition on the part of those canvassed to a foreign intervention that would renew the war. The refugees see the Free Syrian Army as weak and divided, a minor player alongside Assad and ISIS. These excerpts are about a third of the original:

Opportunistic sampling of Syrians living in Irbid has revealed greater diversity in political leanings than initially expected. Few report being staunch supporters of either Asad or the FSA. Irrespective of previous political hopes for Syria, many seem to be playing a pragmatic game of reconciliation—re-obscuring political affiliations in a preparation for rehabilitation with the regime. . . . 

There is little enthusiasm for a reinvigorated FSA making a new bid for power: Syrians canvassed are simply not in favour of another long phase of civil war fueled by further foreign influence. Political dreams are seen as waning in importance in the face of overwhelming desire to cut losses and restart lives—people yearn for careers, home ownership, marriage, children, all of which are near impossible for displaced Syrians in the current political climate in Jordan. Many are actively considering return in the short term, despite the risks. This is especially so for those who originated from areas such as Suwayda, which have already been reclaimed by SAA forces. Others talk of restarting lives in Damascus, though they cite the dangers of a life riddled with government checkpoints while carrying identification which associates them with the rebellious province of Dar’a.

While these findings can not be assumed reflect the desires of all Syrians in Jordan—notably they do not include residents of Zaatari, who are reported to be more staunch FSA supporters—I suspect that a concrete offer of amnesty from Asad, backed up by safe and successful reintegration of those who first repatriate, could spark large numbers of urban-based Syrians to return. Exhausted by the refugee experience, repatriated Syrians may constitute a major influence on the conflict sooner rather than later.

* * *

Matthew R. Stevens, “Dreaming of Home: Syrian Refugees in Jordan’s Cities—Will They Be Repatriated?” Syria Comment, September 16, 2014

Christians in Aleppo: None Support the Rebels

Edward Dark of Al Monitor interviews a range of observers in the Christian neighborhoods of Aleppo, Syria.

* * *

. . . Yousef is a shopkeeper in the predominantly Christian neighborhood of Sulaimaniyah, which has seen almost constant rebel shelling since the civil war divided Aleppo in July 2012. His brother serves in the Syrian army in Damascus. In conversation, he conveyed to me some of the predominant questions and anxieties going through his community.

“Why aren’t the moderate Muslims doing more to stop the extremists in their midst?” he asked bitterly. “Do they agree with their ideology and extremism? We saw hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets against the abuses of the regime, so why are we not now seeing those thousands of protesters against what IS is doing? Worse, we are now seeing many people and rebel groups joining them. There are so many hundreds of these Islamic rebel groups, but they are all the same, they all have this extremist ideology against us. My conclusion is that these groups and IS are fully supported and backed in what they are doing by the anti-government forces."

The Christians of Syria had for the most part tried to stay out of the country’s raging civil conflict, but had often found themselves embroiled in its messy and bloody events. On more than one occasion, the Christians became the focal point of action, as in Maaloula, Yabrud and Kassab, as well as high- profile kidnappings of nuns and clerics.

But there are voices starting to question whether they should remain neutral in a conflict which they view as having mutated to blatantly targeting them and threatening their community with annihilation. Many believe that taking up arms, at least for self-defense, is a wise choice, but others feel it would only further enrage and inflame their worst enemies, spurring them into perpetrating even more heinous crimes.

As with many of West Aleppo’s inhabitants, some Christians too have fled the violence that has torn apart their city; many will never return. But unlike the mass exodus of Christians seen elsewhere, Aleppo’s Christians have largely stayed in their city, suggesting that Aleppo’s Christian community remains attached to its ancestral home, and are an integral part of the city’s diverse social, ethnic and cultural mosaic.

But fear of the kind of ethnic cleansing that is being seen in Iraq strikes deep. George, a mechanic who owns a garage in Sulaimaniyah, told me, “The Christians of Aleppo will not stay if the regime loses control of the city. They will be finished here, maybe for good. The takfiri jihadists will make sure of that. Their plan is to clear the nation of all non-Sunni people. They are now using fear tactics and propaganda to intimidate people to leave even before they arrive; it’s that easy. This is why they do all their grisly crimes on camera, to win without firing a bullet. And when they enter new areas, they burn down our churches and confiscate our homes and businesses. They want to erase all traces of us from our own lands. What kind of message are they spreading? Why would you want someone to join your religion by the threat of death?”

George accuses the West of being complicit in the removal of Christians from the Middle East. “Why didn’t the United States take military action when the ISIS persecuted Christians in Raqqa and Mosul? Why only now when it is Yazidis being targeted? There is a plot to remove all Christians from the Middle East, it is crazy, the West has the same plan as the terrorists for us! It is clear, look, now France is taking in all Christian refugees from Iraq, but in Mali it sent in its army to defeat the terrorists. Are they only terrorists in Iraq and Mali, but revolutionaries in Syria?”

Many of the points Yousef and George raised were being echoed across the Christian community in Aleppo, indicating their shared predicament and anxieties no matter what their political affiliations. Not all Christians in Aleppo support the regime; in fact, a large number of them do not, but equally significant is that you won’t find any that support the rebels, either.

The recent repeated rebel shelling of the Syriac Catholic Church, a large and iconic building in the heart of the old Christian community at Azizeh, is seen by many as a clear message by the rebels, revealing their true intent toward their community.

“There is no more need for the pretense of liberation and freedom.” Yousef said, “They [rebels] have successfully sold that to the outside world while they pursue their real agendas inside Syria in broad daylight.”

* * *

Edward Dark,  “Aleppo’s forgotten Christians,” Al Monitor, August 11, 2014

ISIS: Bring Terror to the Hearts of the Shia

Patrick Cockburn of Britain's Independent reports on the philosophy of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, flush from their successes in taking Mosul and other Sunni towns in Iraq. I was unable to locate the full text of Abu Mohammed al-Adnani's statement, parsed below by Cockburn, but the overall drift is apparent from Cockburn's summary.

* * *

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) is itself amazed by its spectacular victories this week, but vows to press on to Baghdad and the holy Shia cities of Karbala and Najaf. Its spokesman says that “enemies and supporters alike are flabbergasted” by its triumphs that he attributes to divine intervention.

He calls on Isis fighters, who have captured Mosul, Tikrit and a string of other towns not become arrogant but behave modestly. “Be warned and do not fall prey to your vanities and egos,” says Isis spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani. “Do not let your egos fall prey to your recent military gains such as the Humvees, helicopters, rifles and military equipment.”

The speech is interesting and significant because Adnani gives the first insight into how Isis views its spectacular territorial gains as well as its intentions in the immediate future. Ominously, he stresses hatred for the Shia, who make up 60 per cent of Iraq’s population, as apostates with whom no compromise is possible, saying it is “the Lord alone who overpowers the Shia. Praise be the Lord who brings terror to their hearts.”

The sectarian denunciations of the Shia are important because they imply that Iraq will be plunged into a renewed sectarian war between Sunni and Shia. There is a warning against any faltering in the present advance: “Do not concede territory gained to the Shia unless they walk over your dead bodies to retrieve it.

“March towards Baghdad. Do not let them [the Shia] breath.”

This is bound to create a counter-reaction among the Shia who are suddenly struggling to preserve the predominance they won in Iraq after the US-led invasion of 2003 overthrew Saddam Hussein and the centuries-old rule of the Sunni minority. The army having failed them, they will fall back on mobilising militias that will hold back the Isis advance. There could be a return to sectarian massacres that killed tens of thousands of Shia and Sunni, mostly in and around Baghdad, in 2006 and 2007.

Adnani is derisive about “the Fool of the Shia. Nouri [al-Maliki]: Look at what you have done with your people, fool! You were always an underwear merchant! … Your people could have reigned supreme over Iraq, but you made them lose that opportunity. Even the Shia will curse you now.”  This analysis, though rhetorical, is probably correct and many Shia today blame Mr Maliki’s leadership for the disasters that face them.

In contrast with Isis’s bloodthirsty threats against the Shia, Adnani recommends fighters to behave moderately against Sunni, even those who may previously have fought on the government side. He says: “Accept repentance and recantations from those who are sincere, and do not bother those who do not bother you, and forgive your Sunni folk, and be gentle with your tribes.”

Overall, there is a strong sense that Isis did not expect such a swift victory, recalling that only recently they had been subjected to “imprisonment, torture, military raids”. Their houses had been occupied and they had had to take refuge “in the mountains, in underground bunkers, in valleys, and in the expanse of the desert.” The flight of 30,000 Iraqi army troops and police from Mosul in the face of 1,300 or so of their fighters seems to have caught the Isis leadership by surprise much as it did the rest of the world.

 Again and again the speaker spits out sectarian hatred of the Shia and it is this which is most alarming for the future. “The Shia are a disgraced people,” he says, accusing them of being polytheists “who worship the dead and stone.” The new war in Iraq could be even more savage than the horrors that went before.

* * *

Patrick Cockburn, "Iraq crisis: 'Do not fall prey to your vanities'--the philosophy of the country's new conquerors," The Independent, June 12, 2014

Iraqi Politician: US Behavior Very Perplexing

The fall of Mosul to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) highlights the anomaly of US policy toward Iraq and Syria. In the former, it supports the Shia-dominated Maliki government of Iraq against ISIS; in the latter, it supports the overthrow of the Assad government, which can only strengthen ISIS. Mosul is the second largest city in Iraq; its fall to ISIS (alongside the widespread desertion of Iraqi government forces) portends evil days ahead for Baghdad. 

We learn from the The New York Times that these untoward events show the following: "Critics have long warned that America’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, without leaving even a token force, invited an insurgent revival. The apparent role of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in Tuesday’s attack helps vindicate those, among them the former ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, who have called for arming more moderate groups in the Syrian conflict." Actually, it shows the utter incoherence of US policy, as is suggested in the following comments (translated by MEMRI) of Ayad Jamal Al-Din, a Shia cleric and former MP in Iraq's parliament. The June 10, 2014 interview was conducted in Washington, D.C. by the Al-Arabiya network.  

* * *

Ayad Jamal Al-Din: "I was very surprised by the American statement, which pledged to support Iraq in keeping with the strategic agreement. On the same day, the U.S. declared that it would weaken... The war in Syria and the war in Iraq are one and the same – both in Syria and in Iraq, it is a war against ISIS. The U.S. strives to weaken the Syrian regime, and this benefits ISIS, but in Baghdad, it supports the regime against ISIS. This is suspicious and perplexing, to tell you the truth.

"As for the collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul – the army is a reflection of its commander. It is Nouri Al-Maliki, the prime minister and general commander of the armed forces, who should be placed on trial for high treason. The military personnel are not responsible for the collapse in Mosul and elsewhere. It is the general commander who should be held accountable and stand trial.

"The ISIS problem is an old one. It was not born today. It is inappropriate to justify ISIS. In the past two hours, I've heard several commentators here on Al-Arabiya TV, saying that the Iraqi Sunnis are persecuted and are denied their rights, and that that is why ISIS has managed to gain a foothold in the country.

"ISIS is composed of the same terrorists who are fighting in Libya, in Somalia, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in Nigeria, and elsewhere. The names of the organizations may vary, but their terrorism is one and the same.

"Commentators should avoid justifying this terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism, and its confrontation should be the same everywhere. It is PM Nouri Al-Maliki himself who should be held accountable. I believe that if there was a parliament of decent human beings in Iraq, Al-Maliki would be voted out of office and would face trial for high treason for bringing about this military collapse – either because he failed or due to his collaboration with the terrorists." [...]

"Al-Maliki will not be affected if Mosul, Kirkuk, or all of north Iraq falls. As long as Baghdad is intact, everybody can go to hell." [...]

Interviewer: "How do you view the [American] support for the military operation and Washington's offer to help resolve this crisis?"

Ayad Jamal Al-Din: "I welcome it. We await this support, but it must extend to all the areas where ISIS may be found. The pressure on the Syrian regime, which is fighting ISIS, must be lifted. They should not try to strengthen the feeble Free Syrian Army [FSA]. There is no FSA. There is ISIS in Syria and Iraq. You cannot fight ISIS in Iraq, yet support it in Syria. There is one war and one enemy.

"The U.S. should give up its hypocrisy. People are not brainless. How can it be that a State Department spokesperson talks about Iraq, and then a White House spokesman says: 'We must pressure the [Syrian] regime so that it surrenders'? Surrenders to whom? To ISIS. Where is the FSA? There is no such thing. The war is one and the same. Support should be extended to both Iraq and Syria. The U.S. should pressure the countries that sponsor ISIS.

"An hour ago, when I entered this studio, Al-Jazeera TV was still calling ISIS 'the tribal rebels.' This is a deception, a lie. These are no tribal rebels. The tribal rebels have fled to Kurdistan. The Sunnis were vanquished by ISIS. These are criminals, murderers, and terrorists." [...]

Interviewer: "To what extend will ISIS encounter a supportive environment?"

Ayad Jamal Al-Din:"What supportive environment?! You yourselves reported that 150,000 Sunni Arabs fled Mosul to Kurdistan. They are not Shiites. The people of Mosul are not Shi'ites. Where is this supportive environment?! In Al-Raqqah? In Deir Al-Zour? In Ramadi? In Fallujah? The Sunnis are not guilty of the sins of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Saying otherwise is libel against the Sunnis – just as the Shiites are not guilty of the sins of the militias that purport to defend them."

* * *

Iraqi Politician Ayad Jamal Al-Din: Al-Maliki Should BeTried For High Treason Following ISIS Capture Of Mosul. MEMRI-TV. 

India's Approach to the Syrian Civil War

The following speech is from India’s External Affairs Minister, Salman Khurshid, at the Geneva II Conference on Syria, which was intended to end the Syrian Civil War and establish a functioning transitional government for the Syrian people. The conference was a failure, clearly. Nonetheless, Khurshid’s remarks beg some interesting questions about his own worldview and his nation’s interests. It’s also worth noting that despite approximately 80% of India being Hindu, and their tension with an Islamic Pakistan, that Khurshid himself is a Muslim, which may influence his perspective of the conflict between Islamic peoples in a more liberal and humanitarian way.

            January 22, 2014

          “Ladies and Gentlemen,

•            I am deeply honoured to be part of this historic political process towards the resolution of the ongoing Syrian conflict. All parties and stakeholders, external and internal, deserve credit for taking this important decision to support the peace initiative for Syria, which will impact not only on Syria but the region as a whole. I compliment the efforts of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, the UN-Arab League Joint Special Representative to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, as well as my counterparts, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the US Secretary of State John Kerry, for their sustained efforts for convening this International Conference on Syria. I share the sentiments of the UN Secretary General that this Conference is a mission of hope and vehicle for a peaceful political transition that will fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people for freedom and dignity as well as provide guarantees for the safety and protection of all communities.

•            The conflict in Syria has raged for far too long. It would be unacceptable not to seize this opportunity to bring an end to the tragic suffering and destruction it has caused. The conflict has resulted in the death of more than 120,000 people. Estimates by the United Nations Refugee Agency show that about 9.3 million people, nearly half the Syrian population, are now in need of humanitarian assistance. This includes an estimated 6.5 million internally displaced people and about 2.3 million registered Syrian refugees, mostly in regional countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. The severe strain of infrastructure resources that this has caused for the host countries is very well appreciated.

     

•            It is well recognized that the lethal conflict within Syria, which occupies an important place in West Asia as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country, is not only the tragedy for the people of Syria but also threatens the stability and security of the region, with potentially long term impact on the geo-strategic dynamics. The conflict has sharply intensified the sectarian fault-lines across the region, with very serious consequences. In particular, the infiltration of all shades of religious extremism in Syria from all parts of the world has rendered the situation extremely dangerous and complicated. Today’s Conference, aimed at peaceful settlement of the conflict, is a positive and timely step to prevent further destabilization of the region.

•            Excellencies, India has important stakes in the Syrian conflict. It shares deep historical and civilizational bonds with the wider West Asia and Gulf region. We have substantial interests in the fields of trade and investment, diaspora, remittances, energy and security. Any spill-over from the Syrian conflict has the potential of impacting negatively on our larger interests.

•            We are encouraged that this Conference is a convergence of the positions of global and regional powers with India’s own consistently stated position of supporting a comprehensive political settlement of the crisis. We have supported full implementation of Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, which focuses on ceasefire and negotiations between all parties, leading to the formation of a transitional governing body and to be followed by democratically held elections. India believes that societies cannot be re-ordered from outside and that people in all countries have the right to choose their own destiny and decide their own future. In line with this, India supports an all-inclusive Syrian led process to chart out the future of Syria, its political structures and leadership. There can be NO military solution to the crisis. India's stand on various resolutions in the Security Council and General Assembly has been in support of efforts to bring about an end to violence by all parties.

     

•            India has responded positively to the international appeal for humanitarian assistance for Syria, being deeply conscious of the humanitarian dimension of the conflict. We supplied essential food items to Syria last year, delivered through the World Food Programme. At the 2nd International Pledging Conference for Syria held in Kuwait on 15 January 2014, India pledged US$ 2 million to the United Nations Syrian Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (UN-SHARP) in support of its prioritized humanitarian activities for Syria.

     

•            India supported the Russia-US framework agreement on the time bound safeguarding and destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, in line with India’s stance of supporting the complete elimination of chemical weapons worldwide. India is encouraged by the steps taken by Syria to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and cooperation being offered by it in the destruction of its stockpiles. As part of the international effort, India has offered technical expertise to the Organization for Protection of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for destruction, verification and training activities. Additionally, India has offered a financial contribution of US$ one million to the OPCW Trust Fund for activities relating to destruction of chemical stockpiles and related facilities in Syria.

•            Excellencies, I extend India’s full backing to this importance peace initiative and wish all participants successful conclusion of the deliberations, resulting in meaningful resolution of the conflict. Sustained peace and stability in the region is in our common             interest. It is expected that all regional and international partners           will demonstrate their meaningful support for constructive negotiations, in alignment with the UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013).   But ultimately, it is the Syrian parties themselves who have to chart   out their own future and we will be watching this process very carefully as they begin their discussions two days later in Geneva. So far, they have shown great courage in coming to the negotiating table. As a next step, I would like to express my earnest hope that they will be able to show the required flexibility in resolving their differences in a spirit of reconciliation and come to pragmatic conclusions that can be implemented on the ground, in the best interest of the Syrian people who are undergoing tremendous suffering on account of the conflict.

•            India stands fully prepared to play its part in the peace process in any manner required of it, conscious of its larger regional and global responsibilities. It will also be willing to assist appropriately in the implementation of the Conclusions deriving from the deliberations of the Syrian parties in Geneva towards the establishment of long term peace and stability in the region and beyond.

            Thank you.”

The final paragraph, to me, is quite interesting, since we get to see India flex some diplomatic muscle. India continues to develop in the Asian sphere and is beginning to challenge the power of a juggernaut China and a viable Japan – both of whom had diplomats present at the conference. Perhaps Khurshid was recognizant of the opportunity, and in addition to appearing favorable for peace, wanted to increase India’s presence in Asian multilateral relations. And although they weren’t there, India’s long-time nemesis, Pakistan, was surely listening as well. In addition to his liberal worldview, Khurshid may have also been giving a soft touch on India’s rise in the nexus of Asian power.

            .

 -- Sachin Mathur