Syria’s double-bladed see-saw

In Syria, the Assad regime was originally built on confrontational bases to get first and foremost the legitimacy it needed, because it had never felt secure in this regard. Hafez Assad comes from a minority that does not constitute more than 10% of the Syrian population. The umbrella was the Arab-Israeli conflict, where exaggeration in hostility towards Zionism and Imperialism constituted a very important cover to silence the masses. Confrontation, resistance and steadfastness were the magic slogans under which the Assad regime hid to suppress, oppress and close every door that might challenge the legitimacy issue for the Assads. The people of Syria− down deep−realized how fake, fable and exposed the Assad’s narrative was. They took advantage of the Arab masses’ unplanned mobilization and took to the streets sacrificing their normal daily survival for a more dignified one.

The regime must have known that such a moment was inevitable. It was also aware that such a conflict with the majority of Syrians−however weak they might be−is the hardest. It is simply going to be described as a regime killing its people. And this is detrimental, not only to the legitimacy it has always strived for, but to its existence. The regime was so keen on projecting its conflict with anything or anybody but not with the people of Syria. Those who are in conflict were made into agents of an outside conspiracy, extremists, terrorists and al-Qaeda-affiliates.

The Syrian people were the actual enemy for the regime, and those mentioned above were projected as the enemy of a regime defending “its people” and “the sovereignty of Syria”. The regime knows well those powers out there who really wanted to see Syria destroyed. It took advantage of that. Those did not want to see an end to the conflict; and the regime in turn felt that the longer the conflict goes the more its chances of survival would be. Such a situation required the power see-saw technique. There is no way to be conclusive when the conflict is between a people and the regime that rules a country. The bloody devastating see-saw principle has been in operation all the years of the conflict.

The see-saw principle required a binary conflict system to be in action with continuity preserved, time lengthening guaranteed and support injected to the two conflicting parties or created multi-conflicting parties, so that goals of the outside are achieved, and the regime could possibly survive. This binary bloody and brutal system has dominated the Syrian scene since the early days of the Syrian uprising: rule or ruin; Assad or nobody; all or nothing; honorable survival or death; Sunni or Shia. With such binariness, even the East-West conflict has come back to dominate our world.

Now that the Americans and Russians have come to a cessation of hostility agreement−also on a binary system bases−we should wait and see if the see- saw would come to a halt. May somebody out there has finally had enough of the Syrian blood to have given the OK for the accord? A discouraging note, that is beyond the usual criticism the accord would be subjected to, is what Mr. Robert Malley, the Middle East, Africa and Gulf White House coordinator, has said recently: “Whether there is a difference between what Russia says and thinks, or if Russia fails to force the Syrian regime to do what it is supposed to do, we are not losing anything. We will continue our support to the Syrian opposition so that the regime would not win or have the upper hand. Such a scenario is not the best one for us or for the Syrian people, because the war will go on. It would not be to the advantage of Russia either, because Russia will find itself further involved in an expanding war. As such, the conflict would not come to an end soon.”

That is real transparency. It is the clearest and most honest expression of the bloody SEE-SAW principle, with the main loser being the Syrian people. Although the Russians will soon start feeling the heat, no one knows when the Americans would be joining the ranks.