Syria, the International Left, and the Need for Solidarity

A map of Syria and the Middle East region. (Photo credit: Erika Wittlieb via pixabay)

From: Muftah

In a recent article for Jacobin, Belgian leftist Mauro Gasparini argued that “ the global left’s greatest mistake since the turn of the twentieth century is to refuse any consistent solidarity with Syrian rebels.” Gasparini correctly notes that, in the country’s current conflict, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is the greatest perpetrator of violence, and adds that only popular resistance can counter extremist groups that make up a large part of the Syrian revolution today.

Gasparini’s arguments are not only factually true, but also a rare admission by a member of the international left. In their analyses, many leftists have largely ignored nearly six years of massacres, religiously-motivated cleansing of urban areas, mass rape, chemical weapons, starvation sieges of entire cities, the bombing of residential neighborhoods, markets and hospitals, the torture and murder of thousands of prisoners, and the targeting of first responders by a sectarian neoliberal ruling clique backed by foreign entities. They have ignored a death toll that is estimated at nearly half a million, for which the Assad regime and its allies hold the most blame.

Even more importantly, they have failed to grasp the events and developments leading up to the Syrian uprising in 2011. Instead, they have insisted that the conflict is a sectarian and/or proxy war between imperial and regional powers (Russia and Iran vs. the United States, the Gulf States, and Turkey). They have stubbornly resisted seeing Syria through anything other than the lens of the Iraq War, “regime change,” and American-centric geopolitics. While painting Assad and his Russian and Iranian patrons as the lesser evils (if not anti-imperialists to be supported outright), they have treated the opposition either as stooges of imperialism or “Wahhabi terrorists.”  Unarmed opposition groups are invisible in this narrative.

As correctly noted by Gasparini, what is so glaringly absent from these leftist rants is any mention of or appreciation whatsoever for the importance of solidarity with the Syrian revolutionaries, activists, and people.

Neoliberal Foundations

The Syrian uprising began as part of the pan-regional Arab Spring, the most significant social upheaval of the twentieth-first century so far.

The Syrian conflict is, in short, a revolution against a despotic, autocratic regime that had long been violating the rights of its people. Hafez al-Assad used violent tactics, ranging from torture and censorship to the outright destruction of large parts of the city of Hama to maintain his rule. Once Hafez’s son, Bashar came to power in 2001, Syria began to adopt a particularly corrupt neoliberalism, as political economists Samer Abboud, Omar Dahi, Bassam Haddad and many others have shown.

The movement toward economic liberalization initially began with the drop in oil prices in the mid-1980s and accelerated after Bashar ascended to the presidency. While members of the Assad family and inner circle benefitted the most from this liberalization, it also transformed the regime’s class base, which had previously included peasants and workers. In the years leading up to 2011, urban capitalists became the regime’s biggest supporters, while peasants, workers, and the lower and middle classes grappled with austerity and falling living standards.

This kleptocratic capitalism combined with a profound level of daily repression and omnipresent cult of personality around the person of the leader.  On top of all this, a severe drought began in 2006, which displaced millions of Syrians from rural areas to cities, where they often congregated in informal housing. The regime did little to nothing to alleviate the crisis.

It was these political and socio-economic factors that laid the groundwork for the revolt in Syria.

Sectarian Myth

For many leftists, the Syrian conflict is little more than a sectarian struggle between competing groups. It is true that, since the revolution began, Syrian society has fractured partly along religious communal lines. But, long before sectarian actors like ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formally Jabhat al-Nusra) were threatening minority groups, the Assad regime was tearing apart Syria’s social fabric to maintain its power base.

Even before the revolution started, the Assad regime was deeply sectarian in nature. Though its base is cross-sectarian, its core is made up of Alawites, the Assad family’s own religious group which makes up 10% of the Syrian population. The regime used this group to create a cadre of loyal security officials; before the war began, 70% of professional soldiers and 80% of officers in Syria were Alawite.

When the uprising broke out, the regime quickly began using sectarianism to try and divide the population. As powerfully demonstrated by Robin Yassin-Kassab and Leila al Shami in the their book Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War, the regime disproportionately attacked Sunni Arabs (70% of the population) during the uprising. It also claimed that the revolution was sectarian in nature, in order to frighten minority groups, including Christians, Shia, and its own Alawites, into submission.

Lesser Evilism and Orientalist Understandings

Much of the left’s apparent support for Assad, whether passive or active, is grounded in the belief that the regime is the lesser evil when compared to the Syrian opposition. Leftist dismissal of all opposition groups as “Wahhabis” or “al-Qaeda” traffics in the same discourse promoted by neo-conservatives in the so-called War on Terror – a discourse which the left has long railed against. The argument that at least Assad is “secular,” as compared to the Islamist opposition, also plays into policies that have sustained Western support for brutal dictatorships in the region for decades.

By that same token, Iran and Russia are also not lesser evils. Even though they are not the arch-villains of Washington Beltway folklore, they are no less imperialist than the United States and its regional allies, like Saudi Arabia. Russia’s effort to maintain its naval base in the Mediterranean by propping up its brutal Syrian client, and Iran’s use of sectarian militias from Iraq to further its regional ambitions, are classic acts of postcolonial imperialism.  

Toward Solidarity

As the left rallies against Western imperialism and Wahhabist “jihadism,” it ignores the most important commitment any leftist has, namely, to act in solidarity with oppressed people. Solidarity is the lifeblood of any progressive movement; it is what we should be offering Syrian revolutionaries, who continue to organize, survive, and build a better future.

So what does solidarity mean in the context of the Syrian war? One of its most important aspects is showing support for Syria’s grassroots democratic institutions. These incredible organizations and groups have been created by activists, beginning in the early days of the revolt and continuing until now. They include local councils, which have been created across the country, in cities, villages, and neighborhoods.

Influenced by the ideas of Syrian anarchist Omar Aziz, the local councils have assumed administrative roles in liberated areas of the country. They have taken on everything from food provisioning to trash collection. Even after over five years of brutal war, nearly four hundred local councils remain, half of them democratically elected.

Local councils are only one example of institution-building in Syria, as well as the diaspora. There is also a new and vibrant alternative media scene, including but not limited to newspapers like al-Jumhuriya (The Republic) and Enab Baladi (Grapes of My Country), both of which publish English and Arabic content. This constitutes a massive shift from the pre-revolutionary period when, with brief exceptions, little to no independent media was allowed.

The creations of organizations like these should be celebrated. Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, Syria had little to no independent civil society before the revolution. These institutions have, as such, been built from scratch, often with little external assistance, during one of the most violent and brutal conflicts seen in decades.  

Leftists who want to contribute to a more equitable and democratic world, beyond capitalism and the current nation-state system, should support these groups. This is not because they are “perfect leftist” ideals, but because they have been forged through revolutionary struggle and are grounded in notions of equity, democracy, and humanitarianism.

This brand of solidarity is not just a performative act. Rather, it can help maintain these groups in the face of overwhelming odds. This includes preventing some of the most famous and popular civic organizations in Syria, like the volunteer first responders the White Helmets, from being co-opted by outside actors.

The White Helmets have taken on the dangerous task of digging victims out of bombed buildings in rebel held areas. They have saved tens of thousands of lives throughout the war, at incredible risk to themselves. Many have died after being deliberately targeted by the regime and its allies.

The group has also been the target of bizarrely conspiratorial attacks, not just from the Assad regime and its allies, but also from those in the West, including from Max Blumenthal, a journalist usually associated with the left and Palestinian cause. Transfixed by the dangers of Western “regime change,” Blumenthal has attacked the White Helmets for receiving funding from western NGOs and states, as well as for its purported involvement in an international conspiracy to bring about more American military intervention in Syria.

There have been a number of superb pieces by Syrians, non-Syrians, and the White Helmets itself that have taken apart Blumenthal’s arguments. While there is little credence to Blumenthal’s claims, by publicizing Syrian revolutionary institutions internationally and showing them solidarity, we can strengthen their hand vis-a-vis international NGOs and other foreign actors that attempt to co-opt them.

Read more...