Khaddam and the Opposition

Two new interviews with ex-V.P. Abdel Halim Khaddam, who has recently launched the National Salvation Front, and a new and important site by Tony Badran:

The first Khaddam interview is by Bette Dam, an excellent Dutch journalist. It can be found in Arabic here. It was published on 6 June. Here is a rough summary:

Khaddam explains that he began to think of going into the opposition after the Soviet Union collapsed. He explained that it was clear Syria needed a new economic system and to feed its people. The entire balance of power had changed and Syria needed to respond to this. It could not be business as usual.

Khaddam explains that from the beginning of Asad's wing of the Baath coming to power, he had hoped there would be greater freedom and democracy. However, Asad began to rely on security and empowered the mukhabarat to the exclusion of the Party, which ended freedom. He says there are people who think like him remaining in the Party but they are not in power and are watched very closely. He would not name any for fear that they would be imprisoned.

When asked why he was so patient with the regime for 30 years if he objected to the rule of one man, Khaddam explains that Syria was going through difficult times in the 1970s and 1980s in its relations with Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, etc. and his resignation would have weakened the country and would not have been understood by the people. It could have put him into danger. Nevertheless, he said he made his criticisms clear and published a book, entitled: The Contemporary Arab Regime.

Lebanon
Khaddam says that Syria's entry into Lebanon in 1976 was the correct thing to do. It was the best of a number of bad possibilities. First, it was the Christians who asked for Syria's help. Zahleh, the largest Christian city in Lebanon, and several other Christian towns in the Baqaa were completely surrounded by enemy forces and were cut off from resupply of food and medicine. If Syria did not go in to raise the siege, he says, another power would have, most probably Israel, which would have been detrimental to Syria's strategic interests and security.

Syria should have left Lebanon according the to the Taif accord in 1994, he said. It did not because Israel remained an occupying power in Southern Lebanon and its forces were a mere 35 miles from Damascus. But Syria should have withdrawn from Lebanon in 2000, at the time Israel pulled out, he claims.

Khaddam claims he made his views know to Asad in 2000. Asad did not want to pull out because he was in negotiations with Israel. Khaddam was against Lahoud taking the presidency. He advised Asad that the Lebanese would not stand for a President who was from the military. Asad insisted because he wanted someone strong in the presidency who would stand by his side in the negotiations and would not try to open a separate front with the Israeli's. Anyway, Khaddam explains, the Lebanon portfolio was taken from him in 1998 and given to Bashar, so it was not his decision.

Damascus Spring and Reform
Khaddam claims he was a supporter of open dialogue, the Damascus Spring, and creating the right atmosphere for democracy and freedom in Syria. He explains his famous speech at the University of Damascus, when he said that the regime could not allow Syria to become like Algeria, which was in civil war, as follows. He said that a number of the civil society leaders were urging Bashar to carry out a revolution against his father's regime, because it was inhuman, etc. I told them Bashar would not do this because he is from his father's heart. I told Bashar that if you turn against your father, they will ask for your head next.

Anyway, Bashar did not have the power to turn against his father's regime at that time because the security chieftains, who were the heart of the regime, would have pushed him aside.

Bashar said he wanted to concentrate on economic reform, so I presented him with an economic reform package. Nothing happened. Then he said he had to carry out administrative reform before the economic reforms so I presented him with an administrative reform package. We got Jacque Chirac of France to send a team to help us with this, but Bashar did not take their advice and nothing happened.

I explained all this at the time of my resignation during the Baath Party congress.

What were the high points?
Khaddam says the most encouraging point was in 1970 and the first part of 1971 when Syria repaired its relations with other Arab states, from which Syria had become cut off. After that, Asad began to consolidate power in his own hands; his family members began to spread corruption and the security apparatus began to tighten its grip on Syria. There was no question about challenging this system. Asad prepared his brother Rifaat for power and then his sons after Rifaat moved against him.

BBC HardTalk: The other Khaddam interview is a BBC television show, "Hardtalk," known for its hard hitting and entertaining questions. It will air tomorrow, Tuesday. The interview will be broadcast at the following times (gmt) on BBC World tomorrow - Tuesday 13th June: 0330, 0830, 1530, 1830, 2330. A streamed version will be available on Hartalk's website after broadcast. There will also be a transcript available.

Tony Badran has constructed a new site - the Syria Monitor - to push the Syrian Opposition's views, bring them to an English speaking audience by translating them, and to set out their schedule of events. It is a fantastic service to us all. Tony has recently been named a Research Fellow for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he focuses on Lebanon and Syria. He researches and writes on political developments and the democratic movement in Lebanon, as well as the opposition in Syria. The "Syria Monitor" is part of his new duties to "defend democracy from terrorism," as the FDD describes its mission.

In advertising his new site, Tony writes:

The Syria Monitor. It's your one stop for news on the Syrian opposition on the web.

If you're looking for how much a cup of coffee costs at the Dorchester Hotel, where the NSF conference took place, you won't find that type of ridiculous nonsense here. Instead, you'll find some real, useful, and objective information.

The reference to the price of coffee at the Dorchester, I am delighted to say, is from the coverage on "Syria Comment." Whereas Syria Comment was able to attract several exclusive stories from non-journalist attendees and from journalists before they filed their own, less colorful stories, Tony copied the wire services. The various views carried on my site gave a description of the setting, explained who was there and what was said in the corridors, as well as gave different impressions of the atmosphere and tenor of the debate. Some were impressed by the proceedings others were not.

Like Farid Ghadry, who named his blog "Syria Comment Plus," Tony seeks to compare his new site with "Syria Comment." It is flattering.

Also like Ghadry, Tony's new employer, The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, has a similar list of sponsors. The Board of Directors and Advisors is choc-a-block full of familiar names, such as Representative Eliot Engel, who co-sponsored the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act, Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, etc.

I can only hope that the FDD has gotten some of the 5 million dollars that congress recently earmarked for boosting democracy in Syria. If Tony's "Syria Monitor" is a product of that effort, it will be money well spent. It is a useful service that all of us who are interested in Syria will profit from and use. Democracy begins with respect for different viewpoints. Tony is an exemplar of these characteristics. His equanimity, tolerance, and respect for views from across the political spectrum should serve him well in his new job as a purveyor of democracy for Syria.