Dialogues of the Deaf? Part One, Syria and Bahrain

It can be frustrating to reply carefully to comments and then find that the person involved simply isn't interested in listening to the response. We all know about Mr 'Bunker' (and when I've time I plan to produce a list of all the questions put to him by me and others last week, to which he has not responded). 

But here I'm dealing with 'Elaine' who seems surprised that I actually believe the things I say, and criticises me for saying that 'the "running in this has been made from the start  by the USA"

She ripostes : 'The problem is that the many responses to the uprisings; that is, those from the Syrian exiles, from the British and French, from the UN, from the Turks and from the Arab League have come all along the way and are well documented, so the facts do not support this assertion. So what if the US ambassador to Syria openly supported the protestors? He was not interjecting himself into some disagreement over their constitution or some economic policy. He was responding to the arrests and shootings of peaceful protestors. So, the time for diplomatic niceties was over. It would have been extraordinary if he hadn't spoken out when hundreds and thousands of people were being murdered.'.

Well, would it? (See Bahrain, below) The US Ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, went to Hama, a well-known centre of the Muslim Brotherhood, in early July when the Syrian troubles were still quite minor (New York Times, 9th July 2011). He went with the French ambassador, Eric Chevalier, choosing a Thursday and a Friday, the Muslim Sabbath and invariably the time of greatest protest.

On 13th July, he was rewarded with the following interesting editorial comment on the liberal interventionist 'Washington Post' (expressing  sentiments with which 'Elaine' doubtless agrees)

'After months of hesitation, the Obama administration has finally recognized what the people of Syria have been making clear for the past four months: that President Bashar al-Assad "has lost legitimacy" and "failed to deliver on the promises he has made," as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it on Monday. "President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power," Ms. Clinton said. That qualifies as news: For months the administration behaved as if it wished to preserve Mr. Assad as a guarantor of stability in his country or a potential peace partner with Israel. Up until this week it has described political reforms led by him as a potential solution to the country's crisis.

'Sadly, the event that appeared to trigger the change in rhetoric was not the continuing slaughter by Mr. Assad's forces of the courageous Syrians who have turned out in dozens of cities and villages to demand an end to his dictatorship. Instead, the tougher language followed an assault on the U.S. Embassy and ambassador's residence in Damascus that was carried out by thugs who were bused in by the regime and that was orchestrated by one of its television stations. The mob smashed windows, hurled rocks and tomatoes and painted slogans before moving on to the French Embassy, which they also attacked.

'Some Syrians may wonder why an ugly but non-lethal incursion on Western diplomatic property got a reaction that the slaughter of some 1,500 people with tanks and helicopter gunships failed to elicit. But we hope they will also remember the superb diplomacy of U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford, who, like his French counterpart, traveled last week to the city of Hama, which has been taken over by the opposition. Mr. Assad's tanks ring the city, and many residents fear a murderous assault. The American ambassador's presence may have forestalled such an attack; it also allowed Mr. Ford to observe and report that, contrary to the regime's propaganda, the Hama protesters were unarmed and have not attacked government buildings or officials.

' Mr. Ford's mission was a demonstration that - despite what is frequently heard from administration officials in Washington - it is possible for the United States to help Syrians free themselves from the Assad dictatorship. Declaring Mr. Assad "illegitimate" is an important signal; it would have still more impact if President Obama, who has spoken publicly on Syria only twice in four months, were to give Mr. Assad the same rhetorical shove he delivered to Egypt's Hosni Mubarak and Libya's Moammar Gaddafi.'

So if it is 'possible for the USA to help Syrians free themselves from the Assad dictatorship', how is that to be achieved? And what sort of government does the USA (which achieved the exact opposite of its intentions in Iraq) hope to obtain, and how does it hope to obtain it?

If it has no plans for direct intervention, it is licensing a civil war of unpredictable duration in which thousands of innocents will inevitably die . Civil wars are pretty much the worst sort of war to be caught in, if you are a woman, a child or a non-combatant.

As for who will succeed Assad, all the portents (as they did in Egypt, quite correctly despite the scoffing of various interventionist 'experts') point to more power for the Muslim Brotherhood, probably backed by Saud Salafists. I should be interested to know which aspects a) of civil war and b) of a Muslim Brotherhood despotism in a country with large Christian and Shia minorities, Eliane looks forward to most.

Except, of course, I forgot. The end result will be a western-style democracy, won't it?

Protest in Syria had, as it happens, begun to grow in mid-March 2011. Serious violence, but limited to small areas,  began in April. The US imposed sanctions on 29th April.  But until Assad allowed/encouraged attacks on the US and French embassies in Damascus in July, Mrs Clinton did not really come down firmly for regime change, though she has never said what sort of new regime she desires. It is very likely to be a Sectarian Sunni Muslim regime, based upon the Muslim brotherhood. I repeat : Has she (or Elaine?) ever wondered what that might be like for non-Sunni Muslims now in Syria?

And, I might add, until then most interventionist media coverage and interest was concentrated in Libya and Egypt. I wonder when 'Elaine' began to be interested in the suffering of the Syrians.

The transformation of the Syrian unrest into a full-scale armed uprising (armed by whom?) really began only around July, and the current terrifying state of war seems to me to be largely the consequence of the USA taking its current stance.

What 'Elaine' has to explain is (as  I originally asked) how she thinks this benefits the actual people of Syria, amidst whom this war is fought.

I grieve for all innocent persons caught in war, but never for anyone who has fomented such a war, or desired it, or helped to cause it. My position is consistent.

Is the position of 'Elaine' consistent? What, for instance, is the view of 'Elaine' about the uprising in Bahrain, cruelly crushed by Saudi forces, with the endorsement of the Gulf Co-operation Council and the acquiescence of the USA. I have heard ( has anyone else?) no reports of the US Ambassador to Bahrain touring rebel zones to give them comfort.

The International Herald Tribune of 27th August 2010 recorded, after a long account of unpleasant repression, 'Opposition leaders have also accused the United States of turning a blind eye.

'In a telephone interview, the American ambassador, J. Adam Ereli, responded: ''Bahrain is important to the United States for security issues. But that doesn't mean we don't raise human rights issues as well.'''

Well I never.

As I have stated before, and I do not withdraw from it, Hitchens's rule of moral outrage on the part of journalists and foreign ministries is clear. If the outrage is selective, it is phoney. It has another purpose. If Elaine's outrage is genuine, as it may well be,  then rather than lecturing me she should contact her government and ask it why it is outraged by Syrian repression, but not by that in Bahrain (two hints – just as Syria is a Russian naval base, Bahrain is a base for the USN. And Saudi Arabia is involved. And the protestors in Bahrain are Shias, hated by Saudi Arabia,   not Salafists or Muslim brothers backed by Saudi Arabia). 

Part two : 'Dialogues of the Deaf- Russia' will follow when I have time