Comment on Asad Speech

Round up of President Bashar al-Asad’s speech (in Arabic)this evening.
(I had to repost because of a link problem and lost one commment. Sorry to the commenter.)

The atmosphere: The president’s motorcade drove up to the front of the parliament building right at 6:00 and the crowd parted and the president stepped out of his car surrounded by several body guards and security. He waived to the cheering well-wishers and strode into the elegant Ottoman style building, where the deputies were waiting for him.

The crowd outside the parliament was small in comparison to that demonstrating in Beirut, but they waved Syrian flags in a mirror image of the Lebanese effort in Martyrs square. The Syrian crowd was not a spontaneous gather one must presume. It was managed; as such crowds are for all presidential photo opportunities these days. There would have been no problem finding willing participants. Syria is anxious and nationalistic these days. Everyone has been praying that their president would speak to the world and somehow explain that Syria is not a bad country. As one Syrian woman journalist said to me, “Syria’s face has been blackened in front of the world. It is a false face and a wrong image that the world has. The president must explain that we are not like that. We just want what is right.”

The president began his speech by explaining that Syria’s foreign policy is directed toward two goals. “One is to protect our national interests, our nation, and its identity, and the other is to protect our stability and internal calm and social peace.” In short – Arabism and stability – those are the foundations of Syrian policy.

The first half of the speech dealt with the peace process and Iraq. The president explained that Syria was serious about beginning the peace process without conditions, but that it expected to resume from the point where previous discussion had left off. He accused Israel of dishonoring the agreements of previous governments and wanting to start from ground zero.

On the Iraq situation, he insisted that Syria had done what it could to limit the uncontrolled flow fighters across the border and cooperate with the US. He accused Washington of making false claims about WMD and Syrian fighters.

In the second half of the speech, the president dealt with Lebanon. He addressed both 1559 and Ta’if, saying that Syria would withdraw its troops first to the Bekaa and then to the border in compliance with both agreements. He did not give a timetable for the withdrawal, claiming that a higher council of Syrian and Lebanese government officials would decide the matter in the next week. Nor did he speak about the mukhabarat (secret police).

All Syrians I have spoken to from shop keepers to intellectuals say they were pleased with the speech. My mother-in-law, who likes Bashar, was enthusiastic and wanted me to know how everyone feels he is a good person and will deal with the situation and bring reform to the country. She reiterated that Syria must withdraw, but insited that the President was correct to refer to the Lebanese opposition as “merchants,” who sell their opinions and support. Of course, everyone understood that the president was referring to Jumblatt in particular. She also believes that the Syrian mukhabarat have been sucked into affairs in Lebanon by the demands of Lebanese politicians more than they have thrust themselves into local politics. She also believes that the Lebanese will turn their country into a mess without Syria. Many Syrians agree with the President on this. How much of this sentiment is a product of hurt national pride and how much stems from a knowledge of Lebanon or fear that Syria would itself be vulnerable to civil strife if the government collapsed, I don't know.

Many Syrians were divided over the wisdom of the President addressing the parliament rather than using the traditional format: addressing the Baath Party, youth groups and cadres in a larger forum. The more westernized one is, the more the parliamentary forum seemed appropriate, largely because it resembles the western tradition of addressing the people, even if the parliament is not elected.

Most Syrians appreciated the president’s rhetoric about Arabism and how Syria is protecting its identity and that of the Arabs more generally. They see the recent events as he does – a battle between the forces of imperialism and Zionism against those of the embattled Arabs and Syrians.

My own sensibilities led me to see the speech from a Western perspective and, in particular, to wonder how Washington hawks will interpret it. They will find much to criticize. The president gave no time table for withdrawal. He accepted none of the blame for Syria’s isolation and explained the sudden consolidation of the Lebanese opposition only in terms of foreign influence and manipulation. He continued to describe the world from a Baathist perspective, as a battle between the forces of good and evil, pitting himself and Syria against George Bush and his nefarious plans for the region. Rather than laying out a vision for Syria’s future by announcing an agenda for reforms, he dwelt on old battles and history. He is carving an ever clearer image of himself as the anti-Bush.

In doing this, he may rally some domestic support, but he will only drive Syria’s conflict with the West forward. He cannot win this battle, and Washington hawks will push forward their arguments for regime change, claiming that the Syrian regime is irremediable even if it is flexible. The more Bashar resists, the more the US will focus on him as the source of the region’s evil. They will say, “He doesn’t get it. The world has changed, but not Syria.” There will be no relief for Bashar al-Asad so long as he digs in his heals and proclaims George Bush’s plan for the Middle East a failure. Washington will come after him whether he is flexible or not. No amount of tactical retreat will relieve the pressure. To truly get Washington off his back, he must “flee by advancing,” as Napoleon would say, and that means reforms. Some analysts here, argue that if he truly reforms, the regime will be undermined. Perhaps it is a catch twenty two?

Have to add a link to Hassan Fattah's excellent article in the NY Times: Saudis Join Call for Syrian Force to Quit Lebanon He quotes me, but it isn't just a vanity plug.