An excellent report from Channel 4 on the al-Bayda massacre, one of hundreds of massacres in Assad’s Russian-backed genocide.
Terry Glavin | 13/09/05 2:21 PM ET More from Terry Glavin
NIKOLAY DOYCHINOV/AFP/Getty ImagesProtesters hold pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and banners against a potential air strike against Syria in front of the U.S. embassy in Sofia on Wednesday.
“In just days, Prime Minister Harper could drag Canada into a war in Syria.” That’s the headline on a Leadnow.ca “campaigning community” robo-letter that will automatically be sent to the Prime Minister, the opposition party leaders and your very own member of Parliament, if you give the website your name and address, and click the “send message” button.
“Canadians overwhelmingly support peacekeeping, not war mongering,” the letter boasts, “and Prime Minister Harper does not have a mandate to get us into a messy war in the Middle East with unknown consequences.” As of Wednesday morning, 16,506 Canadians had clicked their way into this lala-land. It is a universe so morally depraved that atrocities on the scale of the Japanese Imperial Army’s 1937 Rape of Nanking merely served as the backdrop for a promenading and a primping about “Canada’s reputation as peacekeepers abroad.”
The letter raises a couple of difficult questions. The first is: How can it be squared with the facts of the real world? Prime Minister Stephen Harper had already made his position abundantly clear: Canada will not be dragged into U.S. President Barack Obama’s convoluted efforts to rebuild his broken street cred with a “punitive” action against the Baathist mass murderer Bashar al-Assad. Besides, Canada hasn’t even been asked to contribute so much as a bullet.
Related
The second question is more difficult: Is it possible for the spoiled children of the Western world’s bourgeoisie to get any more repulsive than this?
The Leadnow letter had been “liked” 39,026 times on Facebook the last time I checked, and it can be situated in the same web-cloud vicinity as a gone-viral photograph of Obama in a classroom at a desk with an adorable little girl. Obama says: “We’re going to war on Syria cause they poison children.” The little girl responds: “So why don’t you bomb Monsanto, you prick?”
How clever. The frivolous complaints that organic-food enthusiasts raise against genetically-modified corn are thus substituted for the agonies of those hundreds of Syrian children in Ghouta two weeks ago, writhing in the death throes of sarin gas poisoning.
But wait. It actually can get more repulsive than this.
Across Canada last weekend, perhaps most noticeably in Toronto and Montreal, Obama’s ego tripping had roused the so-called “anti-war” movement from its lingering disinterest in Syrian affairs to stage demonstrations in collaboration with Canada’s nasty and violent little Baathist community. The T-shirts with the words “We love you” and Assad’s face on them were kind of a giveaway.
“These people are supporting one of the most fascist and criminal regimes, not only in the Middle East, but that the world has seen,” Faisal Alazem of the Syrian Canadian Council said to me during a conversation the other day. “This war has been going on for three years now, and all of a sudden these people are peace lovers? All this time, Syria is being destroyed by war. They should please stop their hypocrisy.”
There is just no way that the moral depravity Alazem so properly points out can be explained by resorting to the dodge of “war weariness,” especially not in Canada. Over 12 years in Afghanistan, Canada lost 158 soldiers. May they rest in peace, but this a low death toll for such a long armed conflict. It also happens to be almost exactly equal to the number of Syrians who are now getting killed, on average, every two days.
The Syrian death toll of 110,000 since February 2011 is roughly three times the number of Afghan civilians who have perished in that struggle since 2001. It is four times the number of Germans who perished in the February 1945 bombing of Dresden. Syrians who have been forced to flee their country now number two million, which is double the number of Irish people who emigrated to North America during the Great Famine of the late 1840s and also at least twice the number of Palestinians displaced by the first Arab-Israeli war of 1947-48.
As David Remnick put it in the New Yorker last month, the flooding of Syrian refugees into Jordan alone over the past year or so is an event comparable to the entire population of Canada suddenly uprooting itself and descending into the United States, en masse. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, struggled with words Tuesday to describe the catastrophe. The Syrian crisis presents a risk to global peace as great as any “since the Vietnam War.”
And strangely, not a peep from the avant-garde, until now. It was all strangely quiet until Barack Obama was roused against his will to declare an intention to fire a “shot across the bow” of the Assad regime in a reluctant departure from his previous policy of deliberately prolonging Syria’s agony for want of something more intelligent to do.
This is what has become of contemporary post-socialist leftism. It counsels only stylishly cynical indifference in the face of mass terror and fascism. To paraphrase Diderot, such will affairs remain, one might suppose, until the last Leadnow slacktivist is strangled with the entrails of the last Canadian Peace Alliance apparatchik. It will remain the task of ruling-class leftism to serve as the culture’s primary bulwark around a global status quo that protects the prerogative of tinpot dictators to wage wars with chemical weapons against the masses of their own citizens, with impunity.
The Ottawa Citizen
Terry Glavin is an author and journalist whose latest book is Come From the Shadows.
Qunfuz
Robin Yassin-Kassab
If the US-led West wished to invade and occupy Syria, or to engineer regime change from afar, it would have taken advantage of the two-and-a-half-year chaos in Syria to intervene long before now.
When the US-led West invaded Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussain was contained. He’d committed his genocides in the past, when he was an ally of the West against Iran, and in 1991, under Western military noses (as he slaughtered Shia rebels and their families en masse, the allied forces in Kuwait and southern Iraq gave him permission to use helicopter gunships, and watched). But in 2003 Saddam was contained and reasonably quiet. There was no popular revolution against him. The West invaded anyway, on the pretext of inexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Syrian regime’s ultra-violent repression of a peaceful protest movement spawned an armed resistance. The regime met the armed resistance with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Then a week ago the regime struck multiple targets in the Damascus suburbs with chemical weapons, perhaps killing as many Syrians in three hours as Palestinians were killed in Israel’s month-long rampage in Gaza (2008/9).
The conflict has been well and truly internationalised for a long while now. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have provided limited and intermittent military supplies to various parts of the opposition (the US has prevented them from delivering heavy weapons). The international brigades of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham – an enemy both of the regime and the democratic opposition to the regime – has been empowered in pockets of northern Syria. The regime has received much more serious financial and military help from Russia and Iran, and has brought in Hizbullah and Iraqi sectarian militias to help it fight its battles. Hizbullah’s switch from defence against Zionism to repression of a revolutionary Arab people has propelled Lebanon back to the verge of civil war. Meanwhile, between a quarter and a third of Syrians are displaced, destabilising Turkey and Jordan as well as Lebanon.
A year to the day before the massive poison gas attacks, Obama set a supposed ‘red line’ on the regime’s use of chemical weapons. Whenever the regime has introduced a new weapon, it has done so quietly and steadily, until its use is normalised and forgotten internationally. So it was with artillery, helicopter gunships, aerial bombardment, scud missiles – first these were used rarely, then more frequently, then on a daily basis. And so it is with the gas. Obama’s chemical red line had already been repeatedly broken in a small way before last week’s atrocities. American inaction made Assad believe he could get away with a bigger show.
By this mass attack, Assad was not only trying to clear areas close to the capital in which rebels were deeply entrenched and advancing; he was also telling the military and popular opposition, “Look, I can do what I want. I can increase the pace of the ethnic cleansing and genocide, and still noone will intervene or allow you to become properly armed.”
So now Obama feels he must act, symbolically at least, to show the larger world as well as Assad that America’s word still means something, that it still makes claims to ensuring international order.
It goes without saying that all states – if we must compare them with people – are hypocrites, and America, as (still) the world’s most powerful state, much more than most. The white phosphorus and depleted uranium munitions it used in Iraq, for instance, can certainly be considered as weapons of mass destruction, though even their use cannot be compared to Assad’s sarin savagery. And late 20th Century America actively aided Saddam’s chemical programme. But simplistic ‘anti-imperialists’ (the sort who haven’t noticed Russia’s blatant imperialism in Syria) should reflect on the complexity of the situation. Should a tyrant be left unchecked to gas his people? If Israel were doing it to the Palestinians, would outside intervention (of course there would be none) to deter Israel be absolutely wrong? Was it right to leave the Bosnian Muslims to be slaughtered? (Many statist leftists would of course unhesitatingly answer yes to this question). Even with our hypocritical and frequently criminal ‘international community’, is there no validity in attempting to preserve the semi-taboo on the mass use of WMD?
I cannot say what will happen, or if it will happen, or what the ramifications will be. I expect, however, that any American-led attack will not dramatically change the balance on the ground. Obama wants to be seen to be acting, and to deter. He will be scared that Assad, Hizbullah or Iran will respond in such a way that he is pressured to expand the operation to end the regime. And he doesn’t want to do this. General Martin Dempsey has recently explained why – America can’t find any branch of the opposition ready to assume power and serve American interests.
One reason that the West doesn’t want to end the regime is that, in the north and east, the al-Qa’ida type militias (indirectly created by Assad’s traumatisation of the country, as well as by the political failures of loyalist traditionalist clerics) are growing in strength. Their strength flows from the fact that the West and the Arabs failed to arm the Free Army. The ineffective Syrian National Coalition must also bear some of the blame for not working harder to organise a national army from the start, before the jihadists had time to establish themselves. Western, Syrian and Arab timidity and Islamophobia have brought on the worst.
I expect the upcoming attack to be, in effect if not in image, tepid. It may not do any good at all. It may allow Assad to reap the ‘resistance’ propaganda victory without changing the calculus on the ground.
If there is any change to calculus on the ground, it will be because the Sauds are increasing military aid after the mass gas attacks. Apparently 40 tons-worth came in through Turkey this week. But will that be sustained? Never before now.
And again, the Sauds, like the Americans, like all states, are acting according to their interests. They back Sisi’s junta in Egypt as it rolls back the victories of the revolution there. In Syria, the Sauds are interested in weakening Iran and Hizbullah, obviously not in facilitating victory for either democrats or radical Islamists who reject Saudi kingship. Syrian fighters facing exile or genocide will take weapons from where they can, but they understand that in the medium and long term, they are on their own, as they have been for the last two and a half years.
The photos and video circulating of yesterday’s alleged chemical gas attack in the east Damascus suburb of Ghouta are haunting. In some, dead bodies, including those of children, are lined up shoulder to shoulder on the floor. In others, volunteers go from victim to victim, pouring water onto the faces of those still alive.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and other watchdog groups have claimed the attack was carried out by Bashar al-Assad’s regime; the Observatory put the number of dead at 1,400 and climbing. If so, it will be the largest recorded chemical attack since a 1988 hit on Iraq’s Kurds by ousted dictator Saddam Hussein. The missiles containing the gas are believed to have been launched from areas of Damascus controlled by the regime.
“A huge number of people in Ghouta are dead, doctors and witnesses are describing horrific details that look like a chemical weapons attack, and the government claims it didn’t do it,” Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in a statement. “The only way to find out what really happened in Ghouta is to let United Nations inspectors in.”
At the time of the attack, United Nations inspectors were in central Damascus, but have not been allowed access to the attack site. HRW said that “whether or not chemical weapons were used, the attack left a large number of civilians dead, and those responsible for unlawful killings should be held to account. The government should give the United Nations chemical weapons inspection team currently in Damascus immediate access.”
Syria Deeply spoke with witnesses in Ghouta about what they saw, and their low hopes that the attack will trigger international intervention in the conflict.
Ghazwan, 28, doctor:
We have previous experience dealing with chemical attacks, but not on this scale. It was shocking to see such a large number of children and women. It was the first time we have seen a chemical attack like this. We couldn’t deal with all these numbers – about 800 injured arrived here in [neighboring] Douma, and we only have a few medical stations and doctors. We gave mechanical ventilation for some who couldn’t breathe, and it is important to give atropine shots, which is the antidote for sarin.
People can help in this situation by washing the injured. We had a lot of volunteers. The situation in Douma was good in in the end, thank God. Only 17 dead from 800.
The main mission was to rescue people. If you want to go there you have to wear masks to protect yourself from chemical weapons, and we only have a few. We get them from the Free Syrian Army.
Yesterday there were a lot of people coming to Douma for treatment. Most have been discharged. A few were suffocating and are getting medical ventilation. The acute state of chemical injuries only lasts 24 hours. That is the critical period. Now most of them are being taken care of back in their homes. A lot of them were scared to go home, but they have no place else to go.
One of the survivors told us that he fainted and then found himself in Douma. They took him to the field hospital. Some survivors told us that they were walking in the streets and seeing bodies everywhere, before they fainted. Some were dead, others were choking.
I’ll be frank with you: Most people I’ve seen today and yesterday don’t expect anything from the international community. They’ve expected too much in the past, so they don’t care too much about this.
Abu Adel, a member of the Information Office in Jobar, the eastern district of Damascus that borders Ghouta:
The atmosphere is incredibly tense. People are wary of a repeat scenario. Now there is heavy shelling with all kinds of weapons, mortar fire and warplanes, and surface-to-surface missiles hit the district in the morning. Now the neighborhood is surrounded by tanks from several directions, and there have been attempts to storm it.
The rebels are doing a major escalation and responding by shelling regime military locations.
We expect nothing from the United Nations.
Abu Ahmed, Moadamiyet al-Sham media center:
Four days ago, the regime [started] to shell Moadamiyet al-Sham with rockets and mortars [launched from] from the Mezzeh military airport. [There were also] tanks and artillery fire [at] the Fourth Division headquarters in the mountains of Moadamiyet.
There was no shelling the night before the attack. Yesterday, when people were leaving the mosque after dawn prayers, they heard seven strange sounds like whistles. The sounds of the explosions were unusually soft.
The rockets had come from the direction of Mezzeh and targeted the area of Zeitouna mosque. Nearby, [there] is a kindergarten.
The worshippers went to the scene to find their families [in a state that looked like] sleeping. People were wounded. Among the wounded were paramedics and doctors. All were passed out.
The ambulance took people to the field hospital. There were 103 people killed, including 17 children, and 305 wounded. Some are still unconscious. One child died today.
People have severed all of their hopes [that] the world [will intervene]. We have nothing but God. But if the inspectors are serious, then they must go to Moadamiyet immediately. They must make serious decisions and not just issue condemnations.
The regime has used every weapon, and now it is [using] chemicals. It is taking its revenge on the cities that have remained steadfast [opposition strongholds] despite all of the bombing and destruction. This is the last resort of Assad, after exhausting every means of suppression. This is vengeance.
Phil Sands
DAMASCUS // Amid universally low expectations that United Nations special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi can bring peace to Syria, some grassroots activists nonetheless say he may yet help to steer the country out of a deepening crisis.
The veteran Algerian diplomat replaced Kofi Annan, who resigned in “frustration and disgust” in August. Mr Brahimi described his task as almost impossible and said only last week there was “no prospect for today or tomorrow” that the civil war would end.
But a month after his appointment some activists say that with skill and a large slice of luck Mr Brahimi has a chance of breaking the cycle of violence.
“The situation on the ground is so dire that this might help him make a breakthrough. Even a small one would be important,” one said.
The activist met Mr Brahimi last month during the envoy’s fact-finding visit to Syria.
At the time it had been reported that Mr Brahimi had a meeting with the officially tolerated political opposition, figures with little credibility inside Syria who are widely seen as regime proxies, condoned by the authorities to show the outside world Syria does tolerate dissent.
While in Damascus however, the UN envoy also met well-connected grassroots activists involved in protests and medical relief efforts.
“If Mr Brahimi can help reduce violence – we are no longer even talking about a complete halt, just to scale it back – then he might be able to make some progress,” the activist said.
“He needs a quick win to show his credibility and to give the opposition faith that his process and methods will work. If he can reduce violence and get meaningful numbers of political prisoners freed and returned to their families, that will give us a narrow platform to build on,” he said.
Mr Brahimi was appointed special envoy to Syria after Mr Annan’s six-point peace plan collapsed. Under the terms of that agreement – signed up to by the president, Bashar Al Assad, and opposition factions – both sides were required to observe a ceasefire, political prisoners were to be freed and negotiations were to begin.
The ceasefire lasted a matter of hours and, despite the presence of UN observers, none of the six points was implemented.
Since the Annan plan failed, violence has only intensified, with air strikes, artillery bombardments and street fighting now routine across much of the country.
Rights groups say upwards of 30,000 people have been killed since the uprising began in March, most of them civilians, and the UN says more than 2.5 million Syrians need humanitarian aid.
According to the activist, Mr Brahimi made it clear the opposition would have to make concessions if the bloodshed were to end.
“I told him we realise that,” the activist said. “It will not be easy to convince the street that it needs to compromise after so much suffering, but if we get some progress on violence and prisoners we will have a window of opportunity and we can at least try.”
That window would not stay open indefinitely, the activist said, suggesting concrete progress needed to be made before the end of the year.
Anti-Assad campaigners who met Mr Brahimi also agreed to a political process without pre-conditions, the activist said. Many opposition groups, including the Syrian National Council and the rebel Free Syrian Army, have insisted Mr Al Assad’s removal would have to come before any talks about a political transition can take place.
“We need to find a rational, realistic way to bring about political change,” the activist said. “We are open to a transitional government as long as there is a clear timetable and as long as it involves real presidential elections, monitored independently by the United Nations.”
A political analyst in Damascus said the rapidly worsening situation might work to Mr Brahimi’s advantage.
“This crisis was never going to end until it had reached every corner or every house in Syria and we are now at that point,” the analyst said. “It is a small chance but if Brahimi can put together the right deal, with the right international backing, a political transition could happen.”
However. another opposition figure in Damascus dismissed suggestions such a deal could be struck, and said both the fractured opposition and Syrian regime were pretending to cooperate with Mr Brahimi without being willing or able to commit to even small compromises.
“The equation that got us to this point has not changed, the opposition will not stop until Assad and his regime has gone, and the regime will not leave until it is physically forced to leave,” said the dissident, who was recently freed from jail.
“The latest UN peace initiative will fail, we are heading into a full scale civil war and there is no end in sight,” he said.
psands@thenational.ae
band annie's Weblog 