The call for a no-fly zone by demonstrators in Syria marks the weakening of the revolutionary process and fails to reflect the will of the vast majority of the popular movement, who oppose any form of foreign military intervention.
For the first time two weeks ago, demonstrators in Syria called for a ‘no-fly zone’. Some members of the Syrian national Council (SNC) have called for foreign military intervention. The Muslim Brotherhood and liberals linked to the US such as Radwan Ziadeh, head of the SNC’s foreign affairs bureau, have both been the most vocal on this issue and said that military intervention is a possibility. Burhan Ghalioun, President of the SNC, opposes any foreign military intervention.
This marks an important shift in the public stance of the SNC away from opposition and towards foreign intervention. It represents a serious weakening of the revolution. In addition, the Arab League has temporarily suspended Syria’s membership and has threatened to implement economic and political sanctions against the Syrian government. The Arab League on Saturday gave Syria a three-day deadline to end its crackdown or face sanctions. If Syria failed to comply, the regional bloc said the suspension would take effect on November 16. It was the decision of the Arab League to suspend Libya’s membership that facilitated the vote of the UN Security Council for a NATO military campaign over the country.
These last events necessitate an analysis from different levels of the SNC, the imperialists and the possibility of a foreign intervention. It is clear that some members of the SNC, and not the whole council – particularly the liberals and the Muslim Brotherhood – have established links with imperialist countries such as the US and France. These forces have also strengthened their relationships with reactionary Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia. They are also strengthening links with Turkey, which hopes to reinforce its position in the region. Both the Gulf countries and Turkey support the Muslim Brotherhood and the liberals in Syria and elsewhere in the region in pushing forward neoliberal policies and normalising their relationship with Israel.
These groups and personalities should be condemned for their links with imperialists and are far from representing the Syrian popular movement. These forces inside the SNC have been the most willing to call for sanctions against Syria and for foreign military intervention. Yet even now they are not a majority inside Syria and are very far from being one. Most of the movement does not want foreign military intervention. This can be seen by the declaration of the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) on “The Vision of the Local Coordination Committees on International Protection”. The LCC is a real force on the ground struggling against the regime without any links with foreign imperialists. The LCC has stated:
“As we insist, in the present very special circumstances, on the direct right of the Syrian people to affirm its right of self-determination before the international community, we assure that all calls based on the ground of “droit d’ingérance,” “devoir d’ingérance,” “humanitarian intervention” or “responsibility to protect” should not hinder the aspiration of the Syrian people to cause peaceful change by its own forces; or lead to dealing with the Syrian people as yet another sphere of influence in the game of nations. Everyday, the demonstrators in Syrian towns and villages chant the motto “The People Want…” The people want emancipation from authoritarian rule. They want to take and hold the initiative in decision making in public affairs, in an independent and peaceful way, in order to determine all aspects of its public life freely and deliberatively. They also want to maintain friendly relations among nations. The Syrian People do not want to substitute authoritarian rule by submission to foreign influence. The Syrian People extracted their independence and founded their modern State. They aspire to liberate all its lands and chiefly the Golan. They aspire to continue supporting the struggle of peoples for self-determination, and chiefly that of the Palestinian People. As the Syrian People are revolting against their oppressive rulers, they will not hesitate to revolt against all forms of foreign domination.”
In addition to this clear refusal of any foreign influences in Syria, several opposition members such as Michel Kilo and Haytham Manna have denounced any call for support of any foreign military intervention. The imperialists and the Gulf countries have actually failed to intervene or to influence the popular movement in a direct manner inside Syria over the past few months because they understand that their Syrian clients, the Muslim Brotherhood and the liberals, are too weak inside the popular movement and on the streets of Syria. They would therefore not be able to secure the interests of foreign imperialists inside Syria and in the region if the regime was to be overthrown. The imperialists have, for the moment, chosen the status quo in Syria despite appearances favouring the popular movement in Syria.
This is why none of the imperialist countries have withdrawn their ambassadors and NATO has repeatedly declared it’s unwillingness to intervene in Syria, explaining the situation is different from Libya. The imperialists and the Gulf countries have also supported the Arab League’s plans, which the Syrian regime has accepted without reservation despite continuing the repression of protesters. The text states that the Syrian regime has agreed to several measures, including the removal of any military presence from cities and residential areas, the release of all political prisoners, and allows the Arab League and foreign media to monitor and report on the situation.
Nevertheless the imperialists have enforced sanctions on the Syrian regime these past few months. But this may be to weaken it in order to push forward their own interests, without breaking the regime entirely. So why is it that NATO has not already intervened militarily in the country? One reason is that the Libyan operation, though eventually a victory for NATO, turned out to be a longer, more risky intervention, with a more unstable outcome than the imperialists predicted. Risks in Syria would be greater still because although the imperial powers detest the Assad regime it is at least a stable enemy.
The Syrian regime has been relatively docile in the region for the imperialists on various levels. The imperialists fear that regime change in Syria would modify the current status quo between Syria and Israel. Syria has avoided direct confrontation with Israel for nearly four decades, despite its calculated support to Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups. With the exception of some air battles in 1982, Israel and Syria have not been in military conflict since 1973. Syria has not responded to direct attacks on its soil widely attributed to Israel, including a 2007 air strike on a suspected nuclear reactor or the assassination of a top Lebanese resistant Imad Moghniye in 2008. During the Lebanese war in 2006, not one bullet was fired from the Syrian territory.
Syria has engaged in multiple rounds of peace talks. Although these talks have not yielded an agreement, their repeated failure has led to nothing worse than continued chill. Israeli experts say that instability or regime change in Syria could change this long-standing arrangement. Syrian officials have repeatedly declared their readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel as soon as the occupation of the Golan ends, while nothing was said on broader Palestinian issues. Rami Makhlouf, the cousin of Bashar Al-Assad, declared in June that if there is no stability in Syria, there will be no stability in Israel, adding that no one can guarantee what will happen if something happens to the Syrian regime.
We should not forget that it was the regime of Hafez Al-Assad that crushed the Palestinians and the progressive movements in Lebanon in 1976, putting an end to their revolution, and participated in the imperialist war against Iraq in 1991 with the US-led coalition. The Syrian regime has arrested anyone in the country trying to develop resistance for the liberation of the Golan and Palestine for the past 30 years.
It is the Syrian people who have pressured the Syrian regime to support resistance in the past. It is the Syrian population who welcomed Palestinian, Lebanese and Iraqi refugees when they were attacked and occupied by imperialist powers. A victory for the Syrian Revolution will open a new resistance front against the imperialist powers, while its defeat will strengthen them. This situation, however, may change rapidly if the imperial powers think that the balance of risk in overthrowing the Syrian regime is changing in their favour. The problem with the opposition calling for NATO assistance is that this is precisely the kind of change that will make the NATO powers think they can gamble successfully on overthrowing the regime.
But for those who still believe in the possibility and the positive effects a foreign military intervention would have in Syria, we should invite them to watch the Iraqi or Afghan scenarios, which are both without democracy, social justice and stability after ten years. The ongoing human catastrophe in both countries is indescribable. The Libyan experience has also shown how destructive a foreign military intervention can be. The death toll in Libya when NATO intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (according to UN estimates). Eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as NATO leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Foreign military intervention would also put the country under occupation for years. Again we can refer to the Iraqi and Afghanistan examples where US forces are still on the ground, while the new authorities in Libya have asked for NATO forces to stay in the country. The Syrian people do no want to replace an authoritarian regime by a foreign occupation, and this goes for those struggling throughout the region. No imperialist country will protect them or fulfil their will for democracy and social justice.
