The Tower Of Conflicts

An attempt to explore the different layers of the Syrian war

It‘s always easier to regard a complex situation from a certain point outside than standing too near at it respectively inside. I‘m not an expert for the complexity of the conflict which causes in the meantime a desperate situation for the Syrian population by devastating the country since more than two and a half years. But with the time I tried to dig into a field of perception that is troubling more an more the eye witnesses worldwide and making it nearly impossible to find solutions which will solve the crisis in favor of the suffering civilians and create a platform of hope on which the crushed country can become rebuilt.

Daily we are confronted with horrible images reaching us from different locations inside Syria. The news machinery is producing frontline footages which became the taste of a disgusting routine; shelled areas, car bombs, field executions, the discovery of mass graves and what else we can expect as results of a war which is getting more and more out of control. Control means in that case the expectation of clear frontlines between good and bad. And there exactly is the problem located: what started as an uprising against injustice and randomness has become a puzzling nightmare staged by powerful actors and socio-religious circumstances making it impossible to figure out the main screenplay of the drama.

The spark which incited the uprising in Syria was similar to the occurences during the Arab Uprising beginning in 2011 (I avoid to use the term Arab Spring, it turned out to be an artificial expression used by the Western press locating the incidents during the wrong season, in fact it was winter when the people in the Arab and North African countries rose up): a handful of teeners wrote the word ,7orriye‘ (freedom) on a wall in Dara‘a, a city south of Damascus, and became arrested for their deed. The inevitable avalanche became rolling, the thought of risking to raise the voice against the strong dictatorship spread throughout the country; via the capital it reached after a time cities like Homs and Hama (the last one was becoming in a horrible way famous for the massacre Hafez Al-Assad‘s troops were having committed in 1982) and finally this spark incited the moderate, if not to be conservative called merchants‘ metropole of Aleppo in the North.

In the first months the term ,7war‘ (dialogue) was still circulating among the population in the hope the regime will turn its‘ moderate side out and move towards the Syrian civil society trying to find a way to open up the claws around them. Especially seen in the ruler himself, Bashar Al-Assad, who gained after getting into power in 2001 the aura of a reformer and who represented at least hope into a real change in favor of the people who were mainly suffering under the brutality the ,mukhabarat‘ (the secret service) and the ,shabi7a‘ (the ghosts), their loyal merciless henchmen were spreading since years.

But after the first reactions of the regime on the people‘s demands - opening fire at unarmed protesters, mass arrests and executions - the mood turned from dialogue to toppling the dictator and his system. Baathism (the political form of ruling Syria) became a system unbearable for the Sunni majority and the call for intervention like the international community did in Libya became louder. The frontline between the people and the regime harmed. Consolidation was getting out of reach.

Those who risked in the meantime their lives - and the lives of their family members - by participating at anti-regime protests were brandmarked by the ruling despots as ,terrorists‘. The soldiers made no difference between men, women or even children. The case of Hamza Al-Khateeb, a 13 years old puber who just wanted to carry some bread to besieged fellows in a neighbor district and was arrested  and tortured to death for this ,crime‘, was circulating around the globe; he became the first famous teenager ,sha7id‘ (martyr) of the Syrian Revolution.

Meanwhile the list of those ,sho7adda‘ (martyrs) is long, civilians of all generations have lost their lives during the continuing struggle for the restauration of ,karama w 7orriye‘ (dignity and freedom).

So far the beginning of the conflict between the people and ,al-nizam‘ (the government, i.e. the regime). It turned out to be a typical revolt from those ,below‘ against those ,upside‘.

But the regime under the control of the main families, the Assads, the Makhloufs and the Shaleeshs, was clever enough due to its‘ knowledge of the socio-generic structure of Syria itself and the whole region to trouble the image of that uprising. What appeared on the surface as a citizens‘ revolt turned with the help of neighboring allies - Lebanon‘s Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezbollah f.ex. - into a conflict of complexity soaking up different interests and goals to become that kind of disgusting war meanwhile we are facing.

Referring to the title I‘ve chosen - the war scenario compared with a tower - I like to present the different floors of conflict:

The People vs. the Regime

The origin of the conflict based on the demand of the removal of certain regime behaviors (not the regime itself, that demand appeared later after the conflict became one-sided violent). By analyzing the process of the struggle for dignity and freedom the Syrian civilians have to become pardonned - let me say it without insulting them and in no way questioning their courage - for their naivety trying to change respectively bring down an iron system of surveillance and repression. The regime itself which at no point of time wanted to give up even a millimeter of power was hiding itself behind argumentations that ,terrorists‘ and ,foreign conspirators‘ were standing behind the popular movement against the Syrian rulership.

Sunni vs. Shia (respectively Alawi)

The Baath system was founded by Bashar‘s father, Hafez Al-Assad and the family belongs to the religious group of the Alawites, an offspring of the Shia community who lives a more moderate way of Islam (maybe not easy for some of us to understand imagining dark-clothed, long-bearded Mullahs by hearing the term Shiite or Shia). As a minority in-between the Syrian religious society the Assads understood well to build up their power with a lot of restrictions and control organs. Only certain Sunnis became favored to serve under the Alawi dominated rulership. So seen the conflict potential between both religious streams was programmed.

Western proxies vs. Eastern proxies

The axis of allies supporting the Assad regime reaches from Lebanon‘s Hezbollah over the clerical ruled Iran to Russia. The last mentioned makes it until today impossible to reach a common condemnation of the crimes against humanity the regime in Damascus is clearly responsible for. On the other hand a weak appearing Western coalition in which the United States, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the main actors continuingly fails to support the uprising faction with necessary equipment at least to guarantee stable conditions for the refugees and the suffering civil society in-between Syria. Every side is stubbornly following its‘ own goals and interests disgracing the term of diplomacy not only in the eyes of the Syrians themselves. The recent tragical chapter of that kind of policy, the usage of chemical weapons and the inability to condemn those grave war crimes is giving the proof of the actual stalemate on the political level.

Religious vs. Seculars

This conflict can also be named as Hardliners vs. Moderates. A conflict which is throwing up the question whether a common political system after the fall of a dictatorship should be handled under the law of the sharia by installing a ,dawla islamiya‘ (Islamic state) or handled under the law based on democratic, liberal and pluralistic ideals by installing a ,dawla madaniya‘ (civil state). How hard the frontlines in this conflict are at the moment we can witness in Egypt where the Seculars (under the guide of the SCAF, the Security Council of Armed Forces) and the Religious (under the leadership of Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood) are fighting each other to gain - and regain - power. A clash which is continuing over decades now by the way. In Syria this clash is fought out between the moderate wing of ,gesh-al-hor‘ (the Free Syrian Army) and groups like ,Dawla Islamiya al-Iraqi al-Sham‘ (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Those clashes between regime rivals are all in all in favor of Assad.

Arabs vs. Kurds

Fortunately this level of conflicts hasn‘t reach the dramatic potential of the recent mentioned ones. But it bears in fact the risk of long-term poisoning the relations between both ethical groups. The Kurds, fighting for decades now for regaining their independence mainly in Turkey, may see their chance to get back parts of their origin homeland and the danger of a radicalization is still pending like a Damokles sword over their heads. As long as they can identify themselves as part of Syria - and for that process granting pluralism is one if not the most important precondition - the Afrin Kurds and the other tribes will work together with the Arab-rooted Syrians for a common Syrian Nation.

Tribes vs. Tribes

In my estimation the core of the conflict problematic the Syrians will have to face. For our Western perception the term ,tribe‘ might be difficult, the best way to translate it into our understanding is ,big family‘. Indeed the main part of the Arab societies is formed from big families, the relations might reach over nations‘ borders and could have a size of thousands of family members. Those tribes are the core even of a nation like Syria is, and it is all but coincidence that the victims of the regime‘s attempt to crackdown the uprising are belonging to certain big families a.k.a. tribes. The complexity of the tribal system makes it for those ones searching a socio-political reform difficult to reach their goals without collaborating with certain tribes. The tribes themselves are often deeply divided; some are standing unquestionably at the regime‘s side due to the favors they are profitting from, others keep in silence waiting until one side gains the momentum of power and other ones have decided to fight side by side with the armed revolutionaries. The regime always used the divide-and-conquer tactics to its‘ own favor especially in-between the tribal mechanisms - and to grant itself the survival as a minority rulership.

All in all these different conflict levels are making it impossible to find a short- or mid-termed solution for the actual tragedy. With all the fervor and enthusiasm I started as supporter of the Syrian Revolution and friend of the Syrian people I had to come to the insight that certain levels of power and collaboration are preventing whole systems from becoming undermined by idealistic ideals - even if they are justified in the name of humanness. But that is only valid for the short-term thinking. On the long hand the chances are high that a new, young generation will change the actual global inhuman conditions and turn toward a future where parents can live with their children without having fear, without risking their lives while walking down the streets, without facing hate or injustice.

Even in Syria.

Slecht Grapje? Nee, Altijd nog Syrië. Helaas.

Een onvrijwillig blik vandaag op de kop van een grote Duitse weekblad, DIE ZEIT, en die hele tragedie, U kunt het ook farce noemen, die zich in Syrië afspeelt sinds nu twee en een half jaren, was er in een frase gecomprimeerd:

'Wer sind die Bösen, wer die Guten?' (Wie zijn de kwaden, wie de goeden?)

Alsof het niet klaar zou zijn achter manden vol van bloedbaden aan de civile bevolking, achter gruwelijke gewelddaden, georganiseerde verdrijvingen en wat weet ik nog al perversiteiten, die wij, aan het lot van de vredelijke betogers deelnemende tijdgetuigen, hebben bekomen te zien, te horen en in enkele gevallen ook te voelen (zodan wij hebben gehad de moed en ons een eigen bildje gemaakt van de situatie in het land). Goed, die onder ons, die er niet de menselijke ramp in Syrië zijn gevolgd, mag het omdat ze niet zijn interesseerd gewezen, omdat ze absolut niet klaar komen met de ultrabrutale beelder die van dag op dag worden getopt alsof een regionale splatter-festival gaat draaien - die zijn in mijn ogen excuseerd maar: iedereen van die welke de horror sinds de beginning volgen moet zich de maag omdraaien bij deze krantenkop.

Wat U vandaag meebekomt vanuit Syrië mag je niet, nooit kunnen vergelijken mee de oorspronkelijke opstand tegen een regime dat over ruim 5 decennia alleen geweld en repressie kennde in omgang met de eigen bevolking: broodje hagelslag voor een geselecteerde minoriteit, zweep en electrokabels voor de rest. Daarop hebben de mensen geen zin meer gehad (eigenlijk begrijplijk, of?).

De herstel van vrijheid en waardigheid, dat was hun oorspronkelijke doel. En is het altijd nog. Er waren in de beginning geen 'terroristen', die met precies dezelfde brutaliteiten hebben geantwoord op de acties van de Assad-vasallen. Nee, er waren alleen vredelijk protesterende lui vanuit alle delen van de bevolking die er zijn gegaan op de straten, binnenkort realiseerend dat ze misschien terug naar 't huis komen achter een demonstratie. Ze wilden geen dictatuur meer hebben, geen angst meer hebben, van een moment op de andere vastgezet en gechicaneerd te worden.

Maar jammers: de politische elite rondherom negeerde deze feit en dat over nu - juist - twee en een half jaren (wat een toeval ook ..).

Wanneer ik nu ga terugblikken blijft precies een woordje dat mag uitdrukken wat ik voel achter die tijd:

God-ver-domme!

Wij, aandeelnemende mensen, burgers, wij alle, moeten ons onvermijdelijk schuldig voelen omdat wij deze politische kaste, die nu den mensenrechten per ignorantie in de afvalbak trappen, hebben gekozen, op democratische manier. Bovenstaande interessen zijn dan toch meer belangrijk.

Het spiraal van geweld die het Assad-regime heeft in gang gezet volgde het counter-spiraal van dadenloosigheid met die de rest van de wereld gereageerde. Bijvoorbeeld: de vuile cocktail om de verschillende 'fact-finding missions' (Denk U maar terug aan de oranje vesten van de observatoren die de Arabische Liga ooit had geschickt: een farce. en daarnaar de Bluehelmets van de Verenigte Naties: de comparatief van een farce.) bekomt er nu nog een topping vanuit slagroom mee de VN-inspectie of het regime heeft ingezet chemische wapens of niet.

Zekers, het mag altijd anders komen dan verwacht maar het uitslag van deze inspectie, sorry, die staat eigenlijk alvast: misschien, wel, niet eenvoudig te zeggen, het kan, maar het kan ook niet, dus: afwachten, kopje tee drinken en de Syrers bij het omkomen toekijken.

Precies die Syrers die niet het image van de langbaardige, religieus gemotiveerde fanatisme-vertegenwoordigers voldoen.

God-ver-domme!

Remarks On Sophisticated Anarchism

There's a difference between Anarchism and Anarchy. Sounds strange but might be better understandable if it's compared to theory and practice: last one is often associated with violent activism.

The theoretical orientated Anarchism isn't imperatively calling out violence. By researching the founder times of Anarchism in Russia and Italy examples of violent actions might stand in the foreground but they are not representative: Just like in all factions which end on -isms even the Anarchism is divided into a moderate and a militant wing.

While the militant Anarchists call for immediate action against the rejected political ideology even under the use of life-endangering measures the moderate Anarchists which I define as Sophisticated Anarchists (being aware that the initials might lead to conclude a hidden message referring to an infamous Third Reich unit, I can assure that there is absolutely no relation to them.) are seeing themselves as more like setscrews on the round table of all political ideologies.

To become a Sophisticated Anarchist you have to internalize all of those political ideologies and reject them. Which means a certain maturity is required. The wildfire of teeners declaring themselves of becoming labelled as Anarchists has nothing to do with the S.A.'s

Mostly Anarchism will be localized in the left spectre among Socialism and Communism. On one side correct in the Manichean view that there primarily exists only left and right. But the S.A.'s are if we keep the Manichean point of view in-between both striving to point out the weak points and errors both sides have.

Regarding all rejected political factions S.A.'s are de facto closer to the Liberalism. Which figures out another line of demarkation between Liberal Anarchists and Leftist Anarchists. Even in the right spectre between Conservatism and Nationalism some Anarchists - admittedly not few - are to be found.

The original meaning of Anarchy is 'no authority'. (It's important not to confuse this with anti-authoritarian behavior.) That doesn't mean ἀναρχία calls for a chaos provoking do-whatever-you-will but more for the personal responsibility of the individual so that leader figures become needless. It's a dream of a functioning society of individuals (many political ideologies are claiming that for themselves; actually the Democracy is neutrally regarded - still - in the leading position of the main political systems.) and will often be regarded as Utopism.

Finally a personal note: I generally reject -isms. They support the Divide-and-Conquer systematic.

The Arab (Off-)Spring

What is left of the revolutionary momentum after two and a half years uprisings in the Middle East and Northern Africa?

Witnessing the actual ongoings especially in Egypt some if not many are having the feeling that a nebulous situation not easy to comprehend is getting additionally ambiguous. That might be true regarding the complexity of army, tribes and brotherhoods, of secular as well as religious movements, of stubborn tyrants, allies, proxies, hate- and fearmongers. Everyone seems to blame the other sides for inciting violence, spreading hate or hijacking popular movements. By victimizing or declaring themselves as conspiracy targets they avoid taking responsibility for their (in-)actions and continue the pervert mood in the game for power. The global bystanders' community reacts varying, on a spectre from passionate support for one or the other side to completely ignoring the incitements, be it because of opposing interventionism in general, be it because of avoiding to get too much involved.

By summing up all players at the field one group which is not only obviously the greatest one is missing. The people. Stuck between think- as well as real tanks, true lies and false promises the civilians are in each revolutionary uprising the ones facing sacrifices and paying the price for decisions and reactions each single involved faction is making. The outlook for this price is a better, a brighter future based on freedom, justice and perspectives the growing up generations will harvest one day. Compared with the population pyramid in the Arabic speaking region a country like Germany for example appears geriatric. But that‘s another topic. Let‘s focus back on the involved countries since the Arab Spring broke out:

In the beginning there was hope

After toppling a fistfull of opressive regimes - Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt and Ghaddafi in Libya - the alliance of Arab dictators became a much more exclusive club still led by Syria‘s Assad who claims his justification by eradicating rebels as well as unarmed civilians. Other tyrants managed more or less to retire - in the case of Saleh in Yemen - or to survive their electoral period to vanish from the screen - like Iran‘s Ahmadinedjad. Those who successfully toppled their unwanted leaders implied their hopes in a future granting them more freedom, restoring dignity and justice as well as equality. The era of nepotism and corruption and the constant fear of random violence through security forces should belong to the past. All these hopes and expectations defined the fundament a new, fair nation would be able to build up. But the process of the demanded change not only requires time but also the insight that Arab democracy needs some adjustment tools like trial-and-error due to the circumstance that it is a political form those countries lack of experience. (Western elitists made the fault to expect a perfectly shaped house of democracy similar to their own ones built up by a finger snap.) Some revolutionaries were aware of that from the beginning of the turmoils, others had and still have to walk a road of painful experiences to reach the desired goals.

The revolutionary roadmap may vary at the first sight from country to country. That deceives. By replacing the metaphorical roadmap with a ladder the first three steps became clearly visible:

First step: Overcome your wall of fear.

The initial spark which flowed around - an occurence convicting more and more people no longer to silence the injustice and to rise up with uplifted chest risking to face uplifted arms - resulted from an unpredictability not even the hard-boiled circles of power could foresee to prevent what came after it. From the more conservative appearing Tunisian society to the revolting nature of the Egyptians the people in the whole region saw their chance to end the state of misery they were in for a long period. Suddenly a majority opposed publicly against the missmanagement of their political elites. The concept of intimidation worked no longer in favor of the tyrannical systems. The people began to become aware of their power to intimidate the tyrants themselves.

Second step: Don‘t ban justified and constructive criticism in your own rows.

Regimes have among all bad characteristics one which is best described as „Don‘t listen to the voice of the people even if their objections are constructive“. By letting them unheard the people are increasingly feeling of not being taken for serious. This inability creates earlier or later a powder keg of discontent leading in the worst case for the dictators to a popular uprise.

The revolutionary movements had to learn since the beginning of resistance that they have to avoid making the same mistake as the opposed regimes. In some cases this process is arduous and tenacious; in Syria for example there is still not reached a consensus of unity among the people strong enough to bring Bashar in distress. That might result inter alia from the traumatizing feeling of being left alone the Syrians have. (Indeed the world community couldn‘t yet find a common formula to help the revolting and in the meantime for survival fighting civilians.)

The ability to handle criticism is both a basic premise for a successful revolutionary roadmap and an essential advantage to become taken for serious.

Third step: Constantly prove not getting undermined.

The Achilles heel of every uprising movement is getting infiltrated by forces definitely not sharing the goals and demands of it; this could happen through a third party or even through the counterparts themselves, e.g. the regimes.

The actual case of the first democratically elected president toppled by the people with the assistance of the armed forces shows clearly the risks and dangers popular movements are facing: by taking down the Brotherhood (Ikhwan) member Morsi the Security Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) presented itself as assisting executor of the people‘s will. Many in and particularly outside Egypt emphasized that as a military coup referring to the granted legitimacy the democratical elected president had in his position.

Suddenly voices were heard murmuring something of a ,hijacked‘ revolution, even of an uprise ,in its beginnings undermined‘. While the last accusation is seriously doubtful the question of a rebellion being hijacked should let ring the revolutionary alarm bells. Not that the verdict of being infiltrated leads to a threatening state of paranoia, that would be more a characteristic of repressional systems, besides remarked. The constant awareness is necessary to know-your-foe who uses also tricks and techniques to shatter an uprising without fighting it heavy-armed.

Simply by taking these three steps forward the popular revolutions in the MENA proved being ready to continue the fight for their demands. The race towards stable tyrant-free independence shows Egypt and Libya after those two and a half years in the pole positions (while the Libyans have to manage democracy under the aspect of their tribal society the Egyptians are stuck in-between SCAF and Ikhwan still trying to find a kind of third way towards a generally accepted political form), the Yemenis are continuing their soft revolution to reach their demands by finding reasonable compromises to deal with the nature of their political class (which is tribal and military dominated) and the Syrians sadly are facing all obstacles a revolution brings with in the most drastical manner and beyond.

But all uprisings have one evident point in common: that they are largely led by people being able to brace long-termed the project of change. As long as this basic claim to continue the roadmap is granted the revolutionary momentum will last until one day  its' demands are fullfilled.

Snowden, Manning, The Real FSA: The 'Threat' Of Upright Citizens

If the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea would live in our actual world he would find a real treasure chest of paradoxies, especially in our modern politics and their relation towards the societies they represent.

The recent case of whistleblower Edward Snowden, a former staff member of the US-American National Security Agency (NSA), is showing the public quite plainly that transparency, responsibility and last but not least conscience forms in combination a menace - surprisingly for those ones officially defending such values in that what we use to call the free world.

While Bradley Manning delivered U.S. Army confidential documents to Wikileaks who exposed the delicate material via the internet to a broader public (the content of those documents contains amongst other the modus operandi during the Afghanistan invasion which wasn't going accord with common war ethics especially the United States were trying to sell as kept up high) Snowden unveiled the NSA practices of digital surveillance. The PRISM program is collecting digital data not only from U.S. citizens using the major internet platforms but also as it looks sensitive data from citizens around the globe, from e-mail-correspondence to log-in passwords. Meanwhile the netizen community is joking about the PRISM program as 'newest and biggest growing social media site'.

We the people ..

Referring to the headline I've chosen both whistleblowers can be seen as upright citizens exposing impure practices to those who it should concern in their own interest: the people. Not only the United States, all modern democracies are built on the vote of the people who are electing their representants in constant intervals. Manning's and Snowden's behavior can be seen as a republican act of civil courage in the context of exposing intransparency: they were providing a secretly kept policy becoming what it originally should be - a res publica, a public issue. But instead being appreciated for their courage by the officials in a kind of way like "thanks for exposing our mistakes and weaknesses, we will work on it from now on" both are facing possible life time imprisonment being accused of high treasure. Xeno of Elea would scratch his head studying these cases ..

From Washington to Damascus

But where are the parallels to those people in Syria being labelled as 'Real FSA'? Just like the U.S. whistleblowers they are so seen also upright citizens. (I strictly use the term in a non-demagogic context being aware of the negative intention especially leftist anarchists putted in by using the term in the 80's of the last century trying to expose a law-and-order character of the addressed ones.) First of all an explanation is required who exactly the protagonists of the Real FSA are: during the uprising against dictator Assad soldiers and commanders of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) began to defect and formed in summer 2011 the 'gesh-issouri-al-hor', the Free Syrian Army. Goal of the defectors was to protect civilians from random attacks of Assad loyal forces (which were at that time besides the SAA particularly the redoubtable shabeeha (ghosts), plain-clothed bullies infamous for their brutality) and to topple the Baath regime. Straight in the beginning of the FSA foundation their officials made very precise clear that they are not following sectarian goals - a reproach which was and is still valid for the ruling elites under the command of Bashar al-Assad.

Those former SAA soldiers and commanders have with Manning and Snowden in common that they turned against the the system they served for simply listening to their conscience. That counts also for all those voluntarily joining the FSA with the purpose to protect the lives of civilians, of their homes, their families. Conscience isn't a calculable corrective. To realize that the political system is irrelevant, be it the constitutional democracy of the United States or the oppressing dictatorship in Syria.

Edward Snowden is cited that his biggest fear is not the eventual prison term he might face. It is that his disclosure could become forgotten by the public, that the majority of the people becomes apathetically. Similar fears the core of the Real FSA likewise has: becoming forgotten, perishing in the flood of pro-revolution battallions fighting for their own goals, mainly radicalized Islamists seeing in Syria an ideal playground for their caliphate experiments. And they are still better equipped. Another paradox Xeno of Elea would shake his head about. The Real FSA and the moderate rebels are denied delivery of adequate weapons for protection measures because those sympathizing with them fear those weapons might land in the wrong hands - salafist jihadis or worse. But the religious radicals are receiving their equipment from other sources while the moderate freedom fighters are still waiting for useful armament.

'loyalty stands above conscience'

Reviewing the history of the Assad tyranny over the last five decades besides the classical oppression tools one speciality to grant the illegal achieved power is appearing very clearly: the coercion of loyalty. The system decided who was on the gainng side and who belonged to the worthless mass. A term like 'conscience' never had a place in that system. Conscience was a luxury only the brave ones were able to afford. Many Syrians decided since March 2011 to regain their conscience and to take their fate into their own hands hoping that those nations keeping such values - apparently - high would support them in their struggle. The higher the disappointment and the embarrassment is in the meantime facing the hesitation of those countries to help. And the regime in Damascus might grin brightly pointing at the double-standards the democracies are exposing in cases such as Manning and Snowden.

Given this complexity and the circumstance that states which are defining themselves as servants of their people de facto are acting in the opposite manner and the more and more growing gaps between nations and their societies Xeno of Elea might not be afraid of getting jobless as philosopher and specialist in paradoxies.

Syria: Les Grandes Grotèsques

While nearly the whole online world is focussig on the unrests erupted in Turkey I will take the chance reflecting a bit about its Southern neighbor getting more and more torn into pieces; where even the reality on the ground seems almost impossible to diagnose what never was easy in the recent two years but became in the meantime completely impossible.

Why? Because all reported ongoings are causing more confusion than elucidation. That plays more in the blood-drenched hands of the disgraceful regime and doesn't really help those fighting to regain freedom and dignity. Déja ecouté? Yes, the restoration of freedom and dignity was one of the central pillars of the revolutionary movement in Syria when it started in March 2011. A fact which the regimers and assadistas would like to erase far too willingly from the global public's memory.

The Syrian information ministry (which doesn't deserve to be entitled that) is announcing a statement that "the Turkish people don't deserve Erdoğan's barbarity"? Doesn't surprise me.

The Syrian foreign ministry (with the unspeakable Moallem at the top) is advising Syrians "not to travel to Turkey because of disturbances"? Doesn't surprise me either.

It's the expected reaction of the doomed dynasty to nebulize the global perception, to legitimize and marginalize its own brutal handwriting how to treat the people. But they will not get away with that.

Even Bashar's Russian doctoral thesis supervisor is able to hide that fact. Maybe his reported proposal Israel should buy the air defense system instead of the Syrian regime is a small signal that he doesn't count any longer on Assad himself, preferring in the meantime a for him adequate replacement (who- or whatever this might be). Still Putin is playing the hardliner card on the international parquet floor of diplomacy. Still.

That what the Western faction is setting in scene since beginning of the year looks like a bad sequel of the former flops 'The Great Hesitation 2011' and 'The Great Hesitation 2012'. Generally favoring the revolutionaries but always finding reasons not to side them effectively ('arms could fall into the wrong hands', 'terrorists might profit', etc etc ..) the coalition of the "Friends Of Syria" is maneuvring as if an international championship in that discipline is shouted out.

All that doesn't help those sticking into deep trouble by getting deplaced, attacked, detained, tortured, murdered.

Those Syrians having lost from a few friends up to their whole families have a given right to be angry.

Angry on the shitty situation they are now in, angry on the regimers who sent out their shabeeha executors to silence the uprisers in their own way and who called now the Hezbollah mercenaries to assist them in their lethal crackdown. Angry on a United Nations body which is unable to condemn proven crimes against humanity caused by the Assad tyranny. Angry on all those commenting the atrocities in Syria with a shrug of the shoulders or even worse: subliming each necessary differentiation with the inglorious label 'Terrorists!'

Cause the funny (tragical? Bitter? Grotesque?) thing is that those who are terrorizing call their victims 'terrorists'.

Whitewashing his rulership is Assad's only survival tactic. He bets on the short-term memory of the global community getting one day amnestied for all he's responsible for. But that doesn't also work: the global consciousness has its memory cache in the meantime in the internet. Bad for him. Daddy Hafez had it better before ruling and oppressing in times negatives had to become developed before getting published, in times articles first had to be printed. (For those being under 20yrs: yes, there was a pre-digital age.)

This is another thing the people - from the average reader to the claimed Mid-East expert - tend to forget: in almost half a century dictatorial delusion the Assad clan brought to perfection it's almost impossible to expect from the Syrians being hard-boiled waterproof democratical humanists. The rising of dubious groups like Jabhat al-Nusra is certainly in the eyes of some a disturbing trend but that doesn't change the fact that the revolution's origin is based in the demand of changing the political system. Some of the first-day activists have kind of resigned considering the increasing violence they witnessed all around them but they are not to blame for the crisis we have now to witness.

And those seemingly standing behind the regime? Are they really all loyalists in the meaning of this expression? Or are they silencing because they fear revenge attacks from their own faction? I can and will not believe that all Alawis are standing like a rock behind the Fuehrer. All they have to do is to break away from the bloodshed causing clan, forcing a moderate wing in-between the Baath party to take over. Easy said, I know, similar problems the National Coalition is actually dealing with.

Shoveling senseless banalities upon given facts - barbaric crimes against innocent civilians, women children - is one of the dirty propaganda strategics the regime uses to justify its survival.

It's up to us that they will not come through with this. The flame of justice will burn eternally. The committed atrocities won't either be forgotten or forgiven.

Syrien: Timeo Danaos ..

Mit dem Eingreifen radikal-religiöser Gruppierungen ins bewaffnete Geschehen wurde eine Wende in der syrischen Revolution eingeleitet, die die Täter-Opfer-Verhältnisse in eine noch bedrohlichere Relation die künftige Entwicklung betreffend verändert. Was bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt als Volksaufstand gegen ein repressives Regime im Zeichen des gewaltlosen Widerstands geführt wurde, ist längst zu einem Grabenkrieg extremistischer Kräfte geworden.

Die Grenzen zwischen Gut und Böse sind nicht nur auf den zweiten Blick verschwommen. Auf der einen Seite haben wir eine rücksichtslose Clique rund um einen Despoten, der mit allen Mitteln seinen inzwischen schon längst illegitimen Machtanspruch sichern will. Auf der anderen Seite haben wir die Unterwanderung der revolutionären Bewegung durch selbsternannte Gotteskrieger, die ihrerseits immer offener nach der Errichtung eines Terrorregimes ihren Ansprüchen nach streben. Zwischen diesen offensichtlich unheiligen Strömungen versucht eine durch exzessive Gewalt gepeinigte Bevölkerung irgendwie zu überleben. Garant für ihre Sicherheit, so denn man überhaupt davon sprechen kann, sind die lose organisierten Verbände der Freien Syrischen Armee, die ihrerseits immer mehr ins Kreuzfeuer der globalen Kritik gerät, da sie es bis heute nicht verstanden hat, sich als vertrauenswürdige Einheit zu konsolidieren und auf klare Distanz zu den religiös motivierten Terroristen zu gehen.

Dieselbe Kritik mag man an der alawitischen Gemeinde, den syrischen Christen sowie den Drusen üben, die sich aus Furcht vor einem entfesselten sunnitischen Mob hinter dem Regime versammeln. Wenn es denn eine Zukunft für das bereits in Trümmer geschossene und zerbombte Land geben mag, dann ist ein Aufeinanderzugehen aller kriegsmüden Konfessionen und Ethnien, um ein Zeichen gegen den drohenden Zerfall und ein wohl Jahrzehnte anwährendes Schlachtfeld auf levantinischem Boden zu setzen. Dazu müssten sich moderate Sunniten, die einen Zivilstaat anstreben, mit moderaten Alawiten, die ihrerseits eine reformierte Ausrichtung der Baath-Politik erarbeiten, auf ein gemeinsames Vorgehen gegen Clanherrschaftswillkür einerseits und fundamentalistisches Gottesstaatssektierertum andererseits einigen.

Ein Prozess, der schwierig anmutet, doch keineswegs unrealisierbar ist. Die Zeit drängt allerdings. Auf der Seite der Revolutionäre ist es am Generalstab der Freien Syrischen Armee sowie der Moslembruderschaft, so schnell als möglich auf Distanz zu Jabhat al-Nusra und anderen Terrorgruppierungen zu gehen und diesen Worten auch Taten folgen zu lassen. Dazu müssen endlich die gemässigten Fraktionen in beiden Organisationen von ihrem Stimmrecht Gebrauch machen, um vor allem die konservativen Flügel auf ihre Seite zu bekommen, denen das Stigma anhaftet, anfällig für radikal-totalitäre Splittergruppen zu sein beziehungsweise diese durch allzu passives Verhalten indirekt gewähren zu lassen.

Gleichzeitig muß sich die von geschürten Ängsten traumatisierte Gemeinschaft der Alawiten vom Terror des Assad-Verbandes lossagen und ihrerseits ein tragfähiges Konzept eines reformorientierten politischen Kurses präsentieren, der sich von der Despotenfamilie und den dazugehörigen Vasallen lossagt, ohne den Baathismus inklusive seiner positiven Errungenschaften vor allem in Sachen Minderheitenschutz komplett abzuschütteln.

Was wie die Quadratur des Kreises klingt, ist eine von Tag zu Tag hauchdünner werdende Chance, den Kriegstreibern auf beiden Seiten das Wasser abzugraben, bevor ihre verbrecherischen Handlungen endgültig zur Normalität einer Tagesordnung auf Generationen hinaus zu mutieren drohen. Leidtragende dieser fatalen Entwicklung wäre nämlich nicht nur die Zivilbevölkerung Syriens, deren Kinder in einem Umfeld von alltäglich gewordenen Grausamkeiten aufwachsen würden, es wären auch die Nachbarstaaten sowie die gesamte Region, die in einem ewigen Konfliktzustand zu verkommen droht. Wunderschön war diese Revolution bis zum Sommer vergangenen Jahres.

Was sich seitdem entwickelt hat, ist beileibe nicht mehr als wunderschön zu bezeichnen. Sondern als Übelkeit provozierender Albtraum. Und  der Fingerzeig auf das Assad-Regime als alles auslösenden Übeltäter sowie die Weltgemeinschaft, die ein ganzes Volk aus selbiger Sicht im Stich gelassen hat, ist mittlerweile nicht mehr als eine Schutzbehauptung, die die allgemeine Hilflosigkeit maximal dokumentiert, doch keine konstruktiven Lösungsansätze bietet, die Tragödie zu überwinden.

Wo viel Licht, ist auch Schatten.

Das Ganze jetzt noch mal frei Schnauze: Ihr könnt nicht einen Dämon bekämpfen, indem ihr einen anderen an eurer Seite gewähren lasst. Die, die da an eurer Seite mitstreiten, liebe syrische Mitmenschen, haben das Potential, noch weitaus übler ihre eigenen Interessen durchzusetzen als der Gurkenhals und seine Truppe.

Lest einfach mal Max Frisch‘s „Biedermann und die Brandstifter“. Genau, ihr seid nämlich selbst gerade die Biedermänner, die die Brandstifter gewähren lassen, natürlich, insgeheim froh, dass wenigstens einer euch im Versuch der Überwindung des Gurkenhalses tatkräftig unterstützt. Doch warum er das, der Nusra-Brandstifter? Das müsst ihr euch fragen. Warum ihr das tut, ist offensichtlich. ihr wollt nicht mehr von Geistern gebeutelt werden. Und die Weltgemeinschaft täte gut dran, sich gleich mal erfrischend offensiv den schwarzen Peter für ihre Zaghaftigkeit in der Zeit vor al-Nusra & Co. anzuheften.

Jetzt, da die Fanatiker auf der Bildfläche erschienen sind, haben sie natürlich alle den Grund, den ihnen der Gurkenhals seit Anbeginn der Revolution um die Ohren gehauen hat. Peter und der Wolf. Bloß dass die Dorfbewohner nicht im denkbar ungünstigsten Moment die Kassandrarufe des Gurkenhals-Peters überhören, nein, auch wenn die Warnungen vorm Wolf sich zunehmend als Blasen entpuppten, sie begannen die drohende Gefahr des Wolfes nach und nach mit zu materialisieren. So ein Ärger aber auch.

Also: Finger weg von den Irren. Ab auf Distanz gehen. Vor allem denjenigen zeigen, deren Vorbehalte genau auf dem Kalifats-GAU gründen, dass ihr nicht konform geht mit diesem Extremistenpack und seinem dreisten Anspruch, Nutzniesser einer Revolution zu sein, die anfänglich unter dem friedvollen Motto der Wiedererlangung von Freiheit und Würde stand - und in den Herzen vieler von euch, das spüre ich, schlagen ebendiese Ursprünge im 7orriye-Karama-Takt wie am ersten Tag.

Wenn es euch gelingt, eine Brücke zu denen zu schlagen, die vor allem wegen dem praktizierten Schutz der Minoritäten in Syrien (dass einige von ihnen, und auch nur Teile jener Minoritäten das Ganze recht krass für ihre Zwecke ausgenutzt haben, ok, brauchen wir nicht drüber zu streiten) hinter einem pluralistisch-säkularen Prinzip stehen, indem ihr eure Gemeinsamkeiten herausarbeitet, naja, eine Gemeinsamkeit sieht ein Blinder mittlerweile vom anderen Ende der Erde, sowohl ihr als auch viele da drüben, hinter der gegnerischen Front, habt verständlicherweise keinen Bock mehr auf bewaffnete Kampfhandlungen. Genauer gesagt: ist jetzt mal eben schietegal, wer gerade exzessiv irgendwo rumballert.

Genau, separiert die Schiesswütigen, sind ja eh nur die einen, die geistesgestört ihre Ansprüche verteidigen und die anderen, die ebenso geistesgestört ihre Vorstellung einer gesellschaftspolitischen Neuordnung verankern wollen. Bevor es in den Annalen heisst: auf fünf Jahrzehnte Brachialdiktatur folgten weitere fünf Jahrzehnte, bloss unter einem anderen Namen ..

Es sind nicht alle, wie sie auf der Seite der jeweiligen Anderen zu sein scheinen.