The world was has been continuously shocked by the atrocities going on in Syria. Despite a ceasefire attempts, most of Syria has been under continuous attack by the government and rebel forces alike. Twitter has been instrumental in spreading real time news, pictures, and videos right from the battleground for the rest of the world to see. The situation in Syria is shocking. What is even more shocking is how little people know about it and how cynical people have become about it.
Naturally, I became curious. A lot of mediums report about what is going on, which is absolutely important, but it seems like many people don’t realize why it’s going on. The Syrian War first began in 2011, about a year after the “start” (the first protests in Tunisia) of the Arab spring. Unlike other countries, 5 years later, the fight for democracy still looms on for Syria. Why is that? Why was every other country that participated in the Arab Spring able to overthrow their governments and lay their foundation for Democracy but Syria was not? What started the Syrian conflict? Most importantly, who can we trust?
We see pictures, videos, and articles everyday, but we never really know what’s actually happening because we aren’t there to see it with our own eyes. There never seems to be a shortage of criticism about the authenticity or the bias’s that saturate the given medium and how they can alter the reality of the situation thus skewing our perceptions of reality. Especially with the “fake news” scandal, everything we see has to be taken with a pound of salt.
That sparked my quest to find someone with a neutral perspective. Someone who didn’t have loyalties to either side and just wanted to educate the masses about what exactly is happening in Syria. After days of searching I found an interesting article written by Reverend Nadim Nassar. The thing that intrigued me about his perspective is the fact that he is a Christian-Syrian friar with no government ties. Many people are leery of the figures presented by the media due to the dubious motives revealed thanks to the widespread accessibility of the internet. What struck me ax interesting about Friar Nassar is that he isn’t on any government’s payroll. Syria is his home country and he has nothing but love for the Syrian people and wants to see a better and more prosperous future which starts by educating the masses. I recently had the opportunity to interview him and gain his insight about all the questions that those of us looking at the Syrian conflict from the outside in have.
- In your article, you listed several factors that contributed to the conflict in Syria, but do you think there is a specific person/cause you can pinpoint as the cause of the Civil War in Syria? You also mentioned that the conflict is not simply a minority ruling the majority. How would you then define the conflict?
Revd Nassar: No civil war would be caused by just a single person or a single cause. After living through seven years of the Lebanese Civil War in the 1980s while I studied theology in Beirut, I learned that civil wars are mostly influenced not just by an internal unrest due to the people’s dissatisfaction with their lot (injustice, lack of political freedom, corruption etc.), but also external influences. Civil wars are fertile soil for regional and international interference and power politics. The war in Syria is typical of this: it started with a popular expression of unrest and it developed into full-blown war as other nations turned it into a proxy war, pouring weapons and money into the country. A major factor also was the twisting of religion for political ends.
- You mentioned in your article that in Hama, there was mass killing of the Muslim brotherhood in the 1980s. What is the connection between that Muslim Brotherhood and the one in Egypt, and do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt gaining power played a factor in exacerbating the conflict in Syria?
Revd Nassar: The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that spreads across the Middle East, although it was founded in Egypt. The rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt through election empowered Islamists across the region. It did not exacerbate the conflict, although the Islamists gained increased political power.
- How does sectarianism play a part in the Syrian conflict today?
Revd Nassar: When the conflict started, Islamists played no role. After the protests became more militarized, the popular movement was high jacked by the Islamists. They brought in foreign fighters, weapons and money, and this greatly exacerbated the conflict. With the rise of the Jihadis and Islamists, and the rise of ISIS, the conflict took on a sectarian dimension which has colored every aspect of the war and polarized Syrian society. This sectarianism and polarization is not just some Muslims against the minorities – in many cases, Muslim is against Muslim also.
- After the Syrian conflict, God willing, is resolved how do you think sectarianism will play a part in Syria? Do you think the different religious groups will ever be able to coexist like they did relatively peacefully under the Assad regime ever again?
Revd Nassar: We need to understand that the minorities and the majority have lived peacefully throughout most of the last 200 years, there have been occasions when the minorities were persecuted, such as under the Ottoman Empire. Since the Assad family came to power in 1970, there had been peaceful coexistence between the faiths but this was imposed by the government which made Syria a secular state.
Religion will always be a major part of the life of the Middle East. The Syrians must work to keep religion as a source of enrichment and social harmony and prevent sectarianism from destroying the bonds between the different faiths. Syria needs to be a secular state that respects the mosaic of religious life within it.
- Who/what groups comprise the “opposition” forces that we hear?
Revd Nassar: We cannot easily identify those groups which are fighting in Syria. The proxy war has created hundreds of groups who are fighting not only the government but also each other. The alliances between the opposition groups are constantly shifting, often provoked by changes in relationships between the regional and international powers that are involved. The Western media portrays the warring parties as good vs evil, like the Rebels against the Empire in Star Wars. It is much, much more complicated. Those fighting the Assad government include hundreds of Jihadi groups (which we don’t hear about in the West), ISIS, secular groups such as the Free Syrian Army, and even local groups that defend their own lands from combatants of every side. Now, the clear majority of the Opposition groups are Jihadis who seek not to free Syria but to take it over and turn it into an Islamic state.
- Should we as objective outsiders side more with Assad or with the “Opposition”?
Revd Nassar: We need to be aware that, in the Syrian conflict, we should not look for “goodies” and “baddies”, those in the right and those in the wrong. Both the Opposition and the Government have made huge mistakes that have caused a lot of bloodshed through prolonging the war. We should side instead with the people of Syria, most of whom do not want war and are not fighting in it.
- Should we arm the opposition forces given the fact that many of them have ties with al Qaeda or have grown into ISIS?
Revd Nassar: I do believe that both sides should not be armed by the world, but they should be encouraged to negotiate an end to the fighting. As long as one side believes that they can obtain military victory, then they will never enter into peace talks.
- How does Russia’s intervention currently affect Syria and depending on how this war is resolved, how will it affect Syria and the rest of the world in the future?
Revd Nassar: Russia is like any other external power that is involved in Syria’s conflict. The difference is that Russia chose to send serious military aid to one side, the Government, and this has given the Government a huge advantage. This has escalated the fighting and increased destruction and bloodshed; it also gave the Government army a huge strategic and tactical advantage. The result was that the army gained a lot of ground. It also hugely embarrassed the West, which is still struggling with how to support the Oppositions. If the West were now to send their own forces into Syria to support the Oppositions, it would almost certainly result in armed conflict between Russian and Western troops, leading to the possibility of world war. As a result of their intervention and huge military presence in Syria, especially along the Mediterranean coast, Russia has gained great influence in the Middle East. Russia has always wanted a Mediterranean foothold, going back to the time of the Czars.
- What do you think the incoming Trump administration will affect how the conflict in Syria is handled given the alleged ties between Trump and Vladimir Putin?
Revd Nassar: It is very early to judge how the President-Elect would deal with this conflict. It is apparent that the American administration is not happy with the positive view of Vladimir Putin that Mr. Trump holds. The world is watching. This could be a great opportunity to build peace and end open conflict, especially in the Middle East.
- Given Iran’s close ties with Assad, how does the new Iran deal affect the scale at which Iran can intervene in the conflict?
Revd Nassar: Iran has been a close ally to Assad for decades. This is not new. Iran also is protecting its interests in the area, taking into consideration that Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian organization, is a major player in the politics in Lebanon and a power to reckon with on the border with Israel. Keeping Syria as an ally and a friend is important for Iran as this country acts as a conduit for Iranian support for Hezbollah. Also, this gives Iran its own foothold on the Mediterranean Sea.
- Do you think the Kurdish people will gain their autonomy, and how will that affect how Syria is governed/partitioned in the future?
Revd Nassar: The Kurdish identity, language and culture should be respected, and they have earned the right to decide their own affairs. Having said that, I do believe in the unity of Syria. The Kurds are not the only minority in Syria that could form their own “state within a state”. All the Syrians, including the Kurds, should protect the unity of Syria in its wonderful diversity.
- I’m not sure if you’ve seen the story about 7 year old Bana living at the forefront of the war in Syria. Her mother tweeted asking President Obama for help. Do you think that it’s right for the Western world to intervene with weapons? There are many people that have voiced their doubts about Bana’s twitter saying it’s a piece of propaganda. From your experiences, can you speak on the authenticity of her twitter and her claims? Many people are also saying that people are dying around the world from civil war: South Sudan, Yemen etc. Is it fair to focus solely on Syria and simultaneously forget about the plight of other countries?
Revd Nassar: I do not have enough information to judge the authenticity of Bana’s tweets, but I do believe that the West lost a golden opportunity to be peacemakers through their decision blindly to support the Oppositions, which include so many jihadi and Islamic militant groups. My conversations with many in the halls of power in the West showed me that politicians rejected supporting a dialogue between the people of Syria because they believed that the fall of the Assad government was imminent. Time has proven them to be totally delusional.
The conflicts around the world should not be competing for attention. Ultimately, the causes of these wars are similar, and the people in these countries are fed up with the corruption, injustices and lack of liberties that they experience. We should focus not on the conflict itself but on the causes of, and solutions to, these conflicts. We must also dismiss forever the idea that adding weapons to a fight somehow ends the fight.
- Given the fact that Western intervention almost always comes with forcible “westernization” of a country which many of the rebel groups are opposed to, how should the Western world intervene without creating the grounds for more religious conflict?
Revd Nassar: All of the regional and international powers should restrict their intervention to encouraging all of those parties to the conflict to negotiate a way to end that conflict with the least possible bloodshed and destruction. Sadly, this is not that path taken in any of the current conflicts. The tragedy is when the decision lies in the hands of warlords rather than peacemakers.
- Why do you think the Arab spring in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were, compared to the one in Syria, more rapidly resolved?
Revd Nassar: What started as the Arab Spring turned into a nightmarish Winter for the region. We cannot compare, in any way, what happened in each country as each is sufficiently different – the history, society and external interests.
We should also realize that Libya is still in chaos and the destruction of this country has been colossal; there is no media coverage of the awful conflict in Libya. Libya is another Western fiasco, where the West assumed that the fall of Gaddafi would usher in a Western democracy. Libyan society is tribal and Gaddafi knew how to keep those tribes happy. What Libya needed was an indigenous system that would respect the structure of Libyan society. As it is, ISIS occupies much of Libya and the war still rages there.
- If Assad stays in power, what will he have to do to be able to rebuild Syria and ensure that it does not ever get embroiled in a Civil war again?
Revd Nassar: If Assad stays in power, he will not have to do anything to prevent civil war as he will already have won militarily. He would keep the secular nature of Syria and its Parliament, which already includes representatives of the majority and all minorities. However, he will have a huge task to rebuild trust between the different elements of society because the war destroyed the glue that holds Syrian society together. The glue was Syria, and Syria has been destroyed. The infrastructure of state will have to be rebuilt, and he should allow NGOs and charities to be active in Syria to help in the healing process.
- How has the media skewed/affected our view on Syria. Do you think that they are doing a good job of thoroughly reporting on the realities that the Syrian people are facing? Do you think there are news outlets that do that better than others, and could you provide some examples of them.
Revd Nassar: The engagement of the media with the war in Syria deserves volumes of interpretation and analysis! The media misreported much, often the victims of propaganda and lies from one side or another. The media should have been much more honest in reporting that much of its work was from a distance, relying on subjective and unreliable sources from the battleground. Sometimes, the media has followed the sensational story rather than the truth. I must say, though, that there are some excellent media reporting from Syria, such Jeremy Bowen (BBC) and Robert Fisk (Independent newspaper). My own experience in the last five years, especially with the BBC, is that I have been given a free platform to express my views and to challenge the politicians and U.K. government.
- Should we focus our money/efforts on expanding and legitimizing Za’atari refugee camp and making sure the Syrian refugees that need to go there are able to safely get there instead of trying to go into Syria to try and “salvage” the country?
Revd Nassar: When I think about refugees, the first way to help them is to stop the fighting. If there is no more war, then they will be able to go home and rebuild their lives. Most refugees do not want to live outside Syria. That’s why the vast majority of refugees are still in Syria. Rather than expending refugee camps outside Syria, we should help those who are still in the country. Living in a refugee camp is a devastating experience; I can confidently say that the inhabitants of the camps would rather go back to their ruined homes than live another day in a camp.
- What can the average person do to help Syria?
Revd Nassar: It is very easy for average people outside Syria to be overwhelmed by the horrible news from that country. Sometimes, as a Syrian, I feel upset that I cannot do more. But we should not give in to this despair: Syria needs everyone’s help. At the Awareness Foundation, we have two major projects inside Syria and Iraq to help the children and young people to become peacemakers in their own communities. The people of Syria need you to become a peacemaker too. For example, do your best to support charities and no-profit organizations that work for peace and reconciliation inside Syria. Also, ask your political representatives difficult questions. Challenge them as to why your country is not pushing for peace and a political solution to the war there.
A very big thank you goes to Reverend Nassar for providing commentary about a conflict that we are reminded about everyday almost to the point of rendering us desensitized. Reverend Nassar provided some insightful commentary surrounding the ongoing conflict in Syria. Like everything, his views are his own, and we should not take them to represent what all of the Syrian people think. Instead, we should use his insight as a way to guide us towards forming our own thoughts and ideas about a conflict that is unraveling before our eyes. The worst thing we can do is to plead ignorance because resources for education are all around us. The biggest the we can do in helping the Syrian people, and other people such as the Yemenis that are facing civil war, is to educate ourselves first. We have to take a proactive stance to expose ourselves to differing viewpoints which allow us to be educated when we vote, donate to charities, retweet things, or take any action that affects the world at large.
Comments are closed.