Protests in Syria - Discussion Thread

[kalerab]

Well instead of dismissing it outright lets just see what will happen. If there is a new constitution as proposed by the opposition how different will it be?

At this very moment has the opposition presented a document or an idea of post Assad Syria? Other than the down with the dictatorship line what are they actually proposing?

Very well, but I doubt that result will differ from what I wrote.

And as a matter of fact, SNC presented several months ago roadmap of post-Assad era. That is if there will be one in near future.

[Paya]

The opposition does not like it because the proposed constitution does not allow for Islamic or religion based parties. Basically similar to Turkey. But this is important to the opposition backers like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
As far as the west is concerned any solution that excludes them in not a solution.

I know why the Islamists don't like it, I'm just curious why a disinterested observer would dismiss the new constitution outright.

Officially there was multi-party system even in communist contries, they always gave few seats in Assembly to their kangaroo parties like social democratic party and such while Communist Party always had more than 90 percent of votes. Not even mentioning simple fact that regime will never, ever, ever, ever register a political party that could challenge its power, that I can tell you now that referendum will pass with at least 90 percent majority and at least 80 percent attendance. After all it´s not like sole non-regime affiliated orgnization is overseeing referendum.

I was born and spent the best part of my childhood in a Communist dictatorship, I know the mechanism, unfortunately. However, this doesn't appear to me to be the case in Syria. As for the overseeing of the referendum, or lack thereof, that is a delegitimizing factor, but the first presidential elections could be observed by international monitors, should the county quiet down, along with the Western rhetoric and hostility (and it really should regardless, lest this becomes a sectarian civil war).

We should wait and see, as themacedonian already said. A lot will be clear if Assad himself decides to run for president. My assumption is that he will not. Not that that would magically erase all doubts about the legitimacy of those elections, but it would be a giant step in the right direction.

[MikeMonolith]

the biggest farce at this point in time is Europe and the US posing like what they're doing have any effect, at all.

assad was given the license to butcher long ago. it's a fight over the sink to wash them hands clean in a hurry right about now.

it's a shame. but having the right friends these days absolve you. completely,

[hattusili]

i don't think they can't establish a working democracy. they have to settle with the next best. but what is the next best?

[themacedonian]

I know why the Islamists don't like it, I'm just curious why a disinterested observer would dismiss the new constitution outright.


I was born and spent the best part of my childhood in a Communist dictatorship, I know the mechanism, unfortunately. However, this doesn't appear to me to be the case in Syria. As for the overseeing of the referendum, or lack thereof, that is a delegitimizing factor, but the first presidential elections could be observed by international monitors, should the county quiet down, along with the Western rhetoric and hostility (and it really should regardless, lest this becomes a sectarian civil war).

We should wait and see, as themacedonian already said. A lot will be clear if Assad himself decides to run for president. My assumption is that he will not. Not that that would magically erase all doubts about the legitimacy of those elections, but it would be a giant step in the right direction.

Actually a good point. Once Assad announced the referendum observers could have been suggested. What ever the result they could have used to critise the regime (it is one no doubt) that would not have legitimised it at all.

[kalerab]

I know why the Islamists don't like it, I'm just curious why a disinterested observer would dismiss the new constitution outright.


I was born and spent the best part of my childhood in a Communist dictatorship, I know the mechanism, unfortunately. However, this doesn't appear to me to be the case in Syria. As for the overseeing of the referendum, or lack thereof, that is a delegitimizing factor, but the first presidential elections could be observed by international monitors, should the county quiet down, along with the Western rhetoric and hostility (and it really should regardless, lest this becomes a sectarian civil war).

We should wait and see, as themacedonian already said. A lot will be clear if Assad himself decides to run for president. My assumption is that he will not. Not that that would magically erase all doubts about the legitimacy of those elections, but it would be a giant step in the right direction.

Yes, it is different from the system we had in Eastern Europe. However it looks to me more like something Algeria or Yemen style (before removal of Saleh). Althogh officialy multi-party republic it is controlled by one state-party which gives no chance to opposition by simple rigging of elections or denial of registration of too hard-style opposition parties. In Algeria for example in first elections after civil war UN, EU, OBSE and other observers were presented. They reported large rigging of elections in favour of Bouteflika. Result? Ignored by Algerian government and Bouteflika is president up to day. In 2004/5, Saleh said that he won´t candidate in next elections in 2006. He did and won it thanks to large rigging. His first reaction during uprising was that he won´t candidate in next elections. No one believed him. Also those presidential elections should take place in 2013, in other words this corresponds with Bashar tactics of stalling. And lastly - this isn´t first time Bashar promised reforms. In early 2000s he announced large reforms which should´ve led to democratization of Syria, so-called Damascus spring. Result was none, activists and dissidents which rose to organize discussions and help with reforms were arrested and inner Baath party remained unchallenged. Why would anyone belive that this time it will any different?

[Flamming_Python]

So let me get this straight.

1 - You're saying Russia is now NOT in Europe?

It is

2 - That Russia DIDN'T have a massive empire?

One of the most massive

3 - That Russia didn't raid other countries' coffers?

It did, Russia as a nation state was descended from Viking rulers after all

4 - That Russia didn't conquer massive amounts of land from enemies, even through frivilous or deceptive means?

It did

5 - That the people Russia conquered were never miserable?

Quite a number of them were

6 - That Russia never ran a massive centuries long crusade against the non-Orthodox peoples she conquered akin to the despised Teutonic Knights and their Baltic Crusade?

Not really no

8 - That Russia never conquered tribe after tribe, horde after horde of uncivilized peoples?

Sure did

9 - that Russia never attacked a non-democratic country?

Well yeah of course it did

What you are missing though is that no-one here is trying to justify Russian colonial imperialism over the centuries; and in fact Russia has long ago learnt from such errors and didn't undertake colonialisation again. You can accuse it of imperialism in the Soviet era but there was a Cold War on and national security took precedence over staying true to some of its principles, etc... And this applied to the US too.

But everything following the Cold War has simply been a travesty.

After a hiatus Europe seems to be back on the whole 'let's conquer the world thing', America leading the charge and using decidedly British tactics of divide-and-rule amongst ethnic groups, funding rebel and Islamist movements, installing puppet-states, gunboat diplomacy and just in general bombing whoever disagrees with it. This is now far more possible than it was back in the 90s or even 2003, with the Western world having now completely suppressed and suffocated their anti-war movements, and dominated and narrowed their information space to a bunch of hacks whose only purpose is to advocate jingonism and armed intervention against people America doesn't like. So yeah, well done.

[Camera]

West calls Syrian referendum a 'sham'

At least 29 people killed in Syria on Sunday, mostly in Homs where shelling by the Syrian military continues; voters cast ballots on new constitution.


By The Associated Press

Syria's authoritarian regime held a referendum on a new constitution Sunday, a gesture by embattled President Bashar Assad to placate those seeking his ouster.
But the opposition deemed it an empty gesture and the West immediately dismissed the vote as a "sham."

CONTINUED: http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...-sham-1.414925

[AustinJ]

The opposition will always call it sham no matter how much one pleases them , while the president supporters will have almost opposite view.

Only a dialog will solve this issue and something like UN peace keeping force on ground can stop the killing by both sides.

[Paya]

Actually a good point. Once Assad announced the referendum observers could have been suggested. What ever the result they could have used to critise the regime (it is one no doubt) that would not have legitimised it at all.

I doubt that international observers could have been secured in time for this referendum, but there is still time (90 or so days) for them to oversee the coming presidential elections. But for that to happen Assad would have to compromise with the UN, and the West would have to make a 180 and call for at least a temporary end of the rebellion and encourage the Syrians opposing Assad to take part in the democratic (and internationally observed) process.

Yes, it is different from the system we had in Eastern Europe.

Damn, only now have I realized you're from Slovakia. Sorry for the lecturing tone.

However it looks to me more like something Algeria or Yemen style (before removal of Saleh). Althogh officialy multi-party republic it is controlled by one state-party which gives no chance to opposition by simple rigging of elections or denial of registration of too hard-style opposition parties. In Algeria for example in first elections after civil war UN, EU, OBSE and other observers were presented. They reported large rigging of elections in favour of Bouteflika. Result? Ignored by Algerian government and Bouteflika is president up to day. In 2004/5, Saleh said that he won´t candidate in next elections in 2006. He did and won it thanks to large rigging. His first reaction during uprising was that he won´t candidate in next elections. No one believed him. Also those presidential elections should take place in 2013, in other words this corresponds with Bashar tactics of stalling. And lastly - this isn´t first time Bashar promised reforms. In early 2000s he announced large reforms which should´ve led to democratization of Syria, so-called Damascus spring. Result was none, activists and dissidents which rose to organize discussions and help with reforms were arrested and inner Baath party remained unchallenged. Why would anyone belive that this time it will any different?

Assad strikes me as an intelligent man (whatever else he might be). One might assume he has learned something from the Yemeni revolution. Among other things, the leaders of Syria and Yemen have one thing in common: their international backers, Russia and the US respectively, on whom they depend for their very survival, have more or less flat-out told them that political reforms have to happen. That's what made Saleh back down, and that is the road I assume Assad will follow as well.

As for Algeria, I must admit I'm not very well versed in their political system and how it operates, but it seems to me that Algeria (or, rather, Bouteflika) is a lot more independent in it's foreign and domestic policies than either Yemen or Syria. It has made concessions to the protesters, regardless. Also, it does not face protests on a scale that other Arab countries do, and they are nowhere near as violent.

[themacedonian]

I think the key thing with this referendum is the turnout. Western news have said that Assad does not have support and surveys are rigged. A high turnout does suggest that people still willing to go along with the government but might not agree with the current war. So far no one is reporting turn out. All news agencies are sticking to the sham call.

[themacedonian]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syrian-kurds-welcome-turkish-humanitarian-corridor-to-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14695&NewsCatID=423

The Kurds apparently expect a new Syria to be a secular state while Clinton wants Sunni Islamic and then the Kurdish to get protection later.

[kalerab]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syr...wsCatID=423The Kurds apparently expect a new Syria to be a secular state while Clinton wants Sunni Islamic and then the Kurdish to get protection later.

Your link is broken and I read the similiar report on meeting in Turkey between Clinton, Ghalioun and Bashar (Kurdish one) and nothing like that was said. Bashar was unsatisfied with SNC because according to him they promised them on paper same rights as they have now with current regional governing, while they expect consitutional recognition of Kurds (similiar situation to Berbers in Libya), more decentralization and prime on regional politics and lifting of all chauvinistic policies and discriminatory laws. Clinton meanwhile urged both groups to make up their differences and unite. So no, nothing like you wrote.

I doubt that international observers could have been secured in time for this referendum, but there is still time (90 or so days) for them to oversee the coming presidential elections. But for that to happen Assad would have to compromise with the UN, and the West would have to make a 180 and call for at least a temporary end of the rebellion and encourage the Syrians opposing Assad to take part in the democratic (and internationally observed) process.


Damn, only now have I realized you're from Slovakia. Sorry for the lecturing tone.


Assad strikes me as an intelligent man (whatever else he might be). One might assume he has learned something from the Yemeni revolution. Among other things, the leaders of Syria and Yemen have one thing in common: their international backers, Russia and the US respectively, on whom they depend for their very survival, have more or less flat-out told them that political reforms have to happen. That's what made Saleh back down, and that is the road I assume Assad will follow as well.

As for Algeria, I must admit I'm not very well versed in their political system and how it operates, but it seems to me that Algeria (or, rather, Bouteflika) is a lot more independent in it's foreign and domestic policies than either Yemen or Syria. It has made concessions to the protesters, regardless. Also, it does not face protests on a scale that other Arab countries do, and they are nowhere near as violent.

Presidential elections are scheduled to 2013 or 2014. Not in 90 days. And frankly, in 2013 whole country will be one giant warzone.

Assad may be intelligent and probably never wanted this to happen. And because of that I really doubt that right now he is calling the shots. It looks to me more like old structure within Baath party has taken power from him and he is just guy with moustache which smiles on banners around the country but that´s about it. Not surprising given that his policy of carrot and stick brought down civil war on the country. For example what is happening in Baba Amr, Homs is scorched earth policy (20 days of shelling without invasion of ground troops when army has every advantage you can think of on their side), till the end of last year army never went that far in its operations. And if you look on Bashar history, he was never supposed to be president, he was supposed to be eye doctor in UK, little brother outside the inner circle. Yet his brother died, he became president and tried to reform the country. It ended up in failure because of old structure which surrounds him and which will never cease power.

As for Saleh, he figured out that he should sign GCC deal not sooner than after what mortar round exploded right in his face and transformed him on walking darth Vader. Yet even in that state he did more than Assad. He resigned.

[themacedonian]

I am on a hand held device. My appologies.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syr...&NewsCatID=423

[themacedonian]

A splinter group called Syria Patriotic Front has been formed by seperating from the SNC.
Apparently more for intervention than SNC.