Threatened by Its Neighbors, Damascus Clamps Down on “Opinion of the Other”

By Sami Moubayed

“We are willing to listen to opinion and to the opinion of the other,” said Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in his July 2000 inaugural speech. Assuming power after 38 years of one-party rule, the young Assad might have expected what the “opinion of the other” would be. It is no secret, after all, that the Ba’ath Party managed to accumulate more enemies than friends in its nearly two decades in power. It is only natural, then, that, once invited to speak out, the party’s enemies would harangue the regime on human rights abuses and the lack of political liberties, and demand compensation for years spent either in jail or in exile. Apparently still uncertain of its ability to maneuver in the absence of the late President Hafez Al-Assad, however, Damascus decided to respond with what, when all else fails, has proven to be the best manner of silencing the opposition: a political clampdown.

Assuming the presidency upon his father’s death, Bashar painted a bright picture of Syria and encouraged his subjects to dream—something they had not dared do for 38 years. He uttered words long absent from Syrian society—democracy, human rights, liberalization, and freedom of speech. Seemingly overnight, political forums sprang up throughout the country, and activists issued their first public statement in September 2000 with the “Intellectuals’ Manifesto.” Signed by some of Syria’s most prominent journalists and academics, the manifesto called for termination of one-party rule, a return to civil society, and a release of all political prisoners.

Assad promptly released some 600 political prisoners, although opposition elements claimed that 1,500 more remained behind bars. Official sources claim that the young president sincerely wanted to respond to the intellectuals’ demands, and that he toyed with the idea of lifting martial law. In December 2000, Assad even met with his national security adviser, Hisham Bikhityar, and Interior Minister Mohammad Harba, and asked them to prepare for an end to martial law.

Assad’s dreams were brought to a grinding halt, however, by Lebanon’s anti-Syrian movement, spearheaded by Maronite Patriarch Sfeir, and the February election of Ariel Sharon as Israeli prime minister. It would be political suicide, Assad’s advisers claimed, to lift martial law at a time when Syria was being openly threatened by two of its nearest neighbors.

Official sources claim Bashar toyed with the idea of lifting martial law.

Bolstering the argument for a clampdown was the apparent courage that began surfacing in Syrian political society. Most notably, Damascus MP Riad Sayf openly defied the regime by inaugurating his own political machine, the Movement for Social Peace, and demanding an end to Ba’ath Party rule. Led by Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam, Damascus struck back with force in February 2001, terminating all intellectual activity, shutting down all political forums, and banning Sayf’s followers from meeting. The state took its response one step further by bringing Sayf to court, reinforcing the message that the recent clampdown was just a warning, and that more action was likely to follow.

This past May, apparently having silenced the opposition of the country’s moderate intellectuals, Damascus was faced with a more violent and radical wing headed by political journalist Nizar Nayyouf. Released from jail after nine years, Nayyouf lashed out at the regime’s past and questioned its future security. Having moved to Paris, Nayyouf began to speak out from his sanctuary in Europe against the torture practiced in Syrian jails, and the mass killing carried out in 1979 and 1980 by Rifaat Al-Assad, President Bashar’s disgraced uncle. Nayyouf survived an assassination attempt in July 2001, prior to his departure for France, and he had been arrested and threatened with force by members of the security service.

In August, Damascus MP Maamoun al-Homsi was arrested and brought before court for speaking out against one-party rule and challenging the duties of the intelligence service. Two days earlier, on Aug. 7, Homsi had launched a hunger strike at his Damascus office, calling on other independent deputies to do likewise. He asked the Assad government to shut down state intelligence bureaus, respect deputies’ parliamentary immunity, guarantee their freedom of speech, and break the monopoly enjoyed by regime officials “and their children” over the country’s economy. Homsi’s call was received with muted enthusiasm, however, since, as a former ally of the regime and associate of Rifaat Al-Assad, he originally had enriched himself through the same practices he was now condemning, and everyone in Syria knew it.

On Sept. 1, veteran Communist Party leader Riad al-Turk also was locked up. A member of the party’s Mao faction, Turk, now 71 years old, had been arrested in 1980 for defying the previous Assad regime and not released until 1998. A highly revered figure in Syria’s political community, Turk has been the subject of much sympathy due to the harsh conditions he experienced in jail. Speaking at an August political forum in Homs he said that under Hafez Al-Assad, Syria “was a political, economic and social stagnation that some people call stability.”

Stagnation or Stability?

The elder Assad’s regime, Turk added, “had relied on terror and the looting of the people’s resources.” The state’s violence, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s violent reciprocation in the 1980s, he said, led to a national catastrophe from which thousands of families still suffer. Addressing foreign policy, Turk said Syria’s 1976 intervention in Lebanon had been a mistake on Hafez Al-Assad’s part, and called for a readjustment of political and military relations between the two countries.

Fed up with his statements, the regime on Sept. 1 had Turk arrested at his doctor’s clinic and taken to Adra Prison. In response, Human Rights Committee president Akram Ne’etha, himself a former political detainee, warned that the opposition would mobilize to secure Turk’s release, and accused the state of having “crossed all red-lines of dealing with the peaceful opposition.” Turk represented the “moderate” opposition and, Ne’etha hinted, if this were eliminated the regime would be faced with a more serious and dangerous political underground.

On Sept. 6, more confusion was caused by the arrest of MP Sayf, an independent, at his Damascus office. A few days earlier Sayf had defied a state ban on political forums and held an open political gathering of some 400 dissidents, who demanded Turk’s release. In the space of one night, several of Sayf’s closest supporters were also apprehended, including Dr. Aref Dalilah, former dean of economics at Damascus University,who had supported Sayf’s campaign from day one. On Sept. 12, the state took advantage of the previous day’s attacks on Washington and New York and arrested Habib Issa, another political dissident who served as spokesman for Syria’s Nasserite opposition group. Preoccupied with the events in America, the international media did not even report his arrest.

An Unpopular Arrest

Of all the clampdowns, however, it was Sayf’s arrest which caused the most commotion. The Damascus legislator had achieved popularity citywide for speaking out against corrupt and illegal practices and regime officials in parliament. Following Bashar Al-Assad’s election as president last year, Sayf co-founded the Civil Society Movement,demanding an end to martial law, a return to pre-Ba’ath civil society, a new constitution, political pluralism, and compensation for 38 years of socialist rule. He even defied a state ban and established his own political organization, the Movement forSocial Peace, as a counter-balance to the influence of the ruling Ba’ath Party.

Although authorities curtailed his activities in February, Sayf continued to deny that he was under an official ban and held political forums at his Damascus residence until Sept. 4. The sessions finally came to an end two days later, when he was arrested and charged with “violating the constitution and defying orders by holding political forums.” The government has since turned down an offer by 15 Damascus-based lawyers to defend the case. The European Union also has stepped in, filing an official complaint and urging his release, but to no avail.

In a recent interview with the Beirut-based Daily Star, Sayf claimed that the state was “visibly upset” with his popularity, boasting that, during 1998 parliamentary elections, “although the regime rigged the ballot boxes, I emerged with 65,000 votes—the highest total ever recorded for an independent deputy in Ba’athist Syria.”

Sayf said he was aware of the “high risk” of his actions, adding that, if arrested, “no-one will protest in my favor, I am sure.” His followers, he went on, “are simple people with normal lives, duties, and families. They will not take to the streets chanting my name, nor will they endanger their families for my sake. The most they will do is cry for me, and pray.”

On Oct. 31, Riad Sayf was escorted to court to stand trial on charges of defying the state. Thirty armed police officers surrounded him in the state courtroom, which was filled with family members. Also in attendance were envoys from the U.S., Norway, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. The EU, having filed in September an official complaint over Sayf’s arrest, declared that it was “very concerned” over his trial and over the issue of political freedoms in Syria.

Less visible at the proceedings, however, was the press, since coinciding—perhaps deliberately—with the trial was the stormy press conference in another part of town of President Assad and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. As headlines in the Western press screamed “Assad scorns Blair,” Sayf's trial received no mention.

Sayf’s Eloquent Defense

Sayf’s defense was even more eloquent than that of Homsi. The 55-year-old deputy denied accusations of trying to topple the constitution and create sectarian conflict in Syria. “I am certain that he who wrote and filed the accusations against me is himself convinced of their falsehood,” Sayf told the court. “I want a fundamental and not general explanation as to why I am here,” he demanded. “I am a deputy in the Syrian parliament. I performed my duties as a deputy, yet the existing regime in Syria does not accept any opposition or argument other than its own.”

He concluded by reminding the judge, “I did not violate the constitution. I am here because I demanded a break-up of the political, cultural, economic, social and media monopoly in Syria.”

During his speech, Sayf was interrupted several times by the judge. He insisted on continuing, however—in a raised voice at times. The court then adjourned, scheduling additional hearings in late November and early December 2001. Observers claim that the most likely scenario is the sentencing of both Sayf and Homsi to lengthy prison terms—perhaps up to life—but that an expected presidential pardon in March 2002, to commemorate 39 years of Ba’ath Party rule, will set them free. The entire prison ordeal, however, would have taught them, and any other future “troublemakers” in Syria, a lesson to remember.

In 1980, Rifaat Al-Assad told his brother, Hafez, “I am willing to sacrifice a million men to preserve the regime.” During the same crisis, Assad reportedly said to the late King Khaled of Saudi Arabia, “Nothing in this country embarrasses us anymore—we will do what it takes to survive.”

These words, apparently, have stood the test of time and still apply to Ba’athist Syria today, 21-years later. Despite the prevailing disillusionment regarding prospects for change, Syrians have managed to maintain hope in their new president, convincing themselves that the arrests, clampdown and backlash were ordered not by Assad, but rather by members of the old-guard determined to maintain their positions and status. Everyone wants to believe that Bashar Al-Assad is above these clampdowns and that, were it left to him, a real and healthy democracy would be installed in Syria. According to this theory, Bashar is waiting for his moment to maneuver as he sees fit.

The young president, once described as “the Attaturk of modern Syria,” has declined to respond to the latest events. He has neither condemned the arrests nor voiced his support for them. Nevertheless, authorities in Damascus are wondering why such a vocal campaign is being launched against them. The best reply to their concern can be found in the words of political activist and opposition leader Aref Dalilah—who remains behind bars. Referring to the clash between Syria’s citizens and the Ba’athist elite, Dalilah said in a March 9 article in the London-based al-Hayyat: “We should stop and ask ourselves, what have we done and what have they done?”

Addressing the regime, Dalilah said, “You ask with the innocence of children, ‘why is this happening to Syria?’ We say that it is the natural outcome of your actions. You brushed aside the constitution and replaced it with martial law that has come to govern every aspect of our daily lives. Your law states that he who proves his credentials in corruption and destruction is promoted to the highest of posts, and he who proves otherwise is reduced to nothing.

“Who killed the nationalist fervor of our people and reduced them to canned sardines who do not strike back even if the enemy burned them alive?” Dalilah asked. “Financial losses of the era that passed, no matter how high, can be compensated. Yet the loss of principle and the spirit of the Syrians is something that we will not forgive.”

Although today the opposition in Syria is starting to fall down like dominoes, with some in jail and others in exile, the demand for change remains. The old score between the ruling Ba’ath and its opposition has yet to be settled.

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.