Is Bashar al-Assad of Syria a Reformer?

“Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Face the Nation”, March 27, 2011

“President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had.  I think it’s incumbent on us to try to move that relationship forward in the same way.”   Senator John Kerry,  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 16, 2011

As we all know, Syria is the latest potential domino in the widespread Middle East upheavals . Demonstrations against the Assad government  in Syrian have been increasing despite a brutal and bloody reaction from the regime.

President Obama spoke this past Monday evening of the justification for intervening in Libya. I support the humanitarian impulse underlying this. Yet I am mystified at the insistence on defending the Syrian rulers, and the claim that they are not as brutal, not as deadly, as Qaddafi.

There is a big divide between our response in Libya and non-response in Syria. In  Libya, Obama has called on Qaddafi to leave, and military steps are being taken to help the rebels. Any such steps have been ruled out in the case of Syria.

Our government has largely given Syria a pass, and this continues as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s assurance that Assad is a “reformer”. The Obama administration  has taken no action, and has had not one word to say in support of the opposition, a situation eerily reminiscent of Iran two years ago, when Obama stood by while the opposition was crushed in the streets of Tehran. Barry Rubin  wonders why “Mubarak, a U.S. ally and far less oppressive than Syria or Iran, was bad; but Assad, an enemy of the United States and a far more repressive dictator is good?”

One of the lessons of Libya is that if a brutal dictator is willing to do whatever it takes, including murdering his own people, he will prevail unless outside help is forthcoming. And so, following  this logic,  the Assad government reaction has been murderous.  According to one witness, “They used live ammunition immediately — no tear gas or anything else.” And Assad  need not fear any outside help for the opposition.

A major center for the uprising is the southern town of Daraa, but there have also been protests in Banias, on the Mediterranean coast, in the central city of Homs, in the capital Damascus, and other places.. Thousands have taken to the streets, urged on by a Facebook page “the Syrian revolution 2011” and  chanting “God, Syria, and Freedom only!”

Jeff Jacoby has recently written an article questioning “ why not Syria?”  Jacoby says the following; 

“If the United States has good reason to support the popular revolt in Libya -- and President Obama argued Monday night that there is "an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him" -- it has considerably more reason to do so in Syria. If it made sense to speed the departure of Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak, accelerating the fall of Syria's Bashar al-Assad should be an even higher priority. If North Africa was improved when the people of Tunisia threw off their dictator, the entire Arab world would be a healthier place if a Syrian uprising toppled Assad.

So why doesn't Washington say so?”

At a moment like this, the Obama administration should be taking every reasonable step to encourage the Syrian uprising and undermine the regime. In his remarks on Libya the other night, the president cheered "the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa," and promised that "wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."  Does he really mean it? Or does this apply only to Libya and Egypt but not Syria or Iran?

Jacoby wonders  if our President seriously believes that “wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States”, why has there been no White House denunciation of the murder of protesters by Syrian security forces? Why haven't US officials publicly exhorted the Security Council and the Arab League to “take as strong a stand against Assad as they did against Qaddafi?”  

.

Rather than intensify the pressure on a regime that is every bit as odious as Qaddafi's, and that arguably has more American blood on its hands that any other government in the Arab world, the Obama administration is bending over backward to reassure Assad.

Among the reasons given for intervention in Libya but not Syria, Hillary Clinton tells us, is because Qaddafi was far more brutal than Assad.

Given Secretary Clinton’s statements, I have looked for any reforms made by Assad and found none. Here is the Assad record that I have found;

In 2007, Bashar al-Assad was found to be building a nuclear reactor with North Korean help; it was obliterated by Israel. (Moammar el-Qaddafi agreed to dismantle Libya's nuclear weapons program in 2003)

Despite wishful thinking by President Obama and Senator Kerry that Syria could be peeled away from Iran, Assad has  moved closer to, and is now Iran’s major ally. .

Bashar al-Assad orchestrated the murder of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. He has asserted control over Lebanon by threatening or using terror against Lebanese opponents.

Bashar al-Assad supplied arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, prior to the war with Israel, then resupplied them after the war, making another war with Israel all but certain.

Bashar al-Assad has funneled Sunni  fighters  into Iraq, where they have killed Americans

Under Bashar al-Assad Syrian dissenters have “disappeared”

During the current protests, Assad’s security forces have killed more than 150 citizens. In the town of Sanamin, witnesses told Al Jazeera of seeing 20 peaceful demonstrators killed  in under 15 minutes

The Assad family has gotten rich while surrounded by poverty.

Syria Is the major backer of Hamas in its battle with Israel.

And so Assad can accurately be called many things, but "reformer" is not one of them

And of course, Bashar al-Assad, a physician educated in Britain, is the son and successor to Hafez al-Assad  who was responsible for the murder of  25,000 Syrian citizens  in Hama in 1982. Further, Syria under the elder Assad was an aggressor in each of Israel’s three largest wars, (1948, 1967, 1973) and it has never had any real interest in pursuing peace with Israel. 

Yaakov Katz  has  pointed out that “when considering the large arsenal of long-range Scud missiles Syria has stockpiled over the years and the accompanying chemical warheads, Israel needs to be concerned”  (The US and the other countries in the region also need to be concerned).  Syria has recently announced that it will rebuild its aging air force, and will obtain  new Russian MIG fighter jets. It currently has advanced surface-to-air missile systems and hundreds of Scud missiles.

Despite all this, Hillary Clinton  calls Assad a reformer. Why? Is this simply ignorance? Or is it loyalty to Obama’s misguided agenda?  Or is it a way to explain why we intervened in Libya but not Syria?. Regardless, this enormous mistake in judgment has tarnished Hillary Clinton, and put into doubt her political future

Secretary Clinton is not alone in making excuses for the Assad regime. Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been a vocal supporter of Assad. Even this month, as protests starting gripping Syria, Mr. Kerry said he thought Syria’s president was an agent for change. “President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,” Mr. Kerry said during a March speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “I think it’s incumbent on us to try to move that relationship forward in the same way.”

Kerry has  met with Assad five times over the last two years, seeking to re-establish negotiations with Israel on peace arrangements. It is clear, as stated by Barry Rubin ,  that Senator  Kerry is an “apologist for an oppressive anti-American dictator”

After the Hariri murder, relations between the US and Syria cooled, and  our ambassador was removed. But based on nothing other than wishful thinking, and the mistaken belief that Syrian could be pulled away from its alliance with Iran, Obama tried to woo Assad by reestablishing  relations and sending  Ambassador Robert Ford to Damascus.  Nothing changed on the  other side.  Assad continues to supply Hezbollah, continues to control Lebanon, continues to help terrorists kill Americans, and has  moved closer to Iran

Omri Ceren reminds us that Secretary Clinton has stated that the U.S. would not act to remove Assad unless it had the backing of an international coalition, a Security Council resolution, a call by the Arab League, and “a condemnation that was universal” . This is an impossible grouping of circumstances. The Arab league almost certainly will not support action against a fourth Muslim nation. And  Russia or China will veto such action directed against an arms client . And when have we ever had universal condemnation?

According to Ceren, Clinton is setting the bar high in order to reassure liberals that  the president will not  get America involved in any new  military adventures. “The left spent eight years insisting you’d have to be an idiot or a neocon to rush into war unilaterally, and Obama went to war in a week with a crumbling coalition” He needs to make it up to his left flank.

So what can be done? Alana Goodman and Elliott Abrams recommend measures that Obama should take immediately. Goodman in particular points out that  “President Obama’s dithering response to both Egypt and Libya should be a model for exactly how not to respond to the escalating violence in Syria”. Here is Goodman’s list.

Robust vocal condemnation: And not just from the White House. “All those who were taken in by Assad” – (such as Senator Kerry) – “should be loudest in denouncing his bloody repression”.

Ramp up the pressure on Assad at multilateral forums.  Abrams names the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, and the ICC as three possibilities. It might be helpful for the UN SC to expedite the Hariri tribunal, and add Assad to the prosecution list.

Bring in the Arab League: “Libya was expelled; let’s demand that Syria be, too,” writes Abrams.

Push for sanctions from the Europeans: Abrams notes, “U.S. sanctions against Syria are strong and probably cannot be increased effectively now, but the European Union has far more trade and investment.”

Bring home Robert Ford: Abrams writes that the Obama administration “erred badly” by sending an ambassador to Syria. He argues that we should recall Ford and “unveil a hard-hitting political and human rights campaign against a bloody regime whose people want it gone.”

A good case can be made for not recalling Ambassador Ford., Josh Block suggests that keeping Ambassador Robert Ford there as a critic of the regime may be very useful. He recommends that Obama send Ford to Daraa, where dozens of demonstrators have been killed,  to show American solidarity with the protestors and to demand an international investigation.

Nothing in this list requires military action. Indeed none of the critics of the coddling of Assad are asking for military intervention against Syria, but are asking for other measures of assistance to all those who are opposing the dictatorships of the Middle East, including  Syria and Iran. The Obama administration is setting  up a straw man in stating that they will not engage in a Libyan-style military intervention. Words matter; we need clear statements of opposition to Assad. Covert operations supplying aid to the demonstrators would also be useful. Fear of offending the Syrian rulers is  pointless.  

Despite Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, there are other, more sane, voices. Martin Indyk,  former American ambassador to Israel,  and not generally  known for creative thinking, nonetheless has stated that the end of the Assad regime would be helpful to the US by depriving  Iran of an ally and by reducing repression in Syria — “an unusual confluence of our values and interests.” Well said. Yet his opinion is unlikely to influence the foreign policy gurus in the administration, who can only think in conventional terms and have bought Obama’s arguments. .

And so the big question is posed by Barry Rubin “If President Obama can say that ‘Mubarak must go’ and ‘Qadhafi must go’ why can't he at least say: ‘Ahmadinejad must go’ and ‘Assad must go.’”

Please bookmark!