On the statement of Syrian intellectuals: Why the silence on some points?

PARIS - Bashir Hilal

January/February 2006

Tens of Syrian intellectuals have recently signed a statement that denounced the assassination of Lebanese MP and journalist Gebran Tueni which “came as part of a series of assassinations and brutal killings that a number of Lebanese politicians and journalists faced recently: Rafik Hariri, Samir Kassir, George Hawi and others.”

At first sight, all of the Lebanese supporting the Independence Intifada – whether intellectuals or not – would welcome the issuance of this statement and its signature by a big number of Syrian intellectuals.

But the statement that came in the heyday of the Syrian opposition’s demands that the March 14 forces maintain their pace for the fate of democracy in Lebanon was certainly tied to democratic change in Syria itself, was deficient at many levels.

The first thing one would notice in the statement was that it was restricted to the denunciation of what could alter freedom of expression.

1 – The statements silence regarding the political responsibility of the Syrian regime

The statement forgets to tie the assassination – which it reaffirms is part of a series of brutal killings of Lebanese journalists and politicians – to any political factions (lest we say a whole structure of a certain state that the undersigned are familiar with more than any other party for they have experienced – more than others – what a state based on a single leading party with nationalistic policies that are actually based on tribalism of a single family means.

They know more than others that this oppressive regime has benefited from the successive wars in Lebanon – that came a few years after the main military nucleus took over the Syrian rule – in order to beef up the regime’s political and economic coup that included the its takeover of Lebanon’s institutions and their resources.

They know more than others what it means to undermine the independence of the Palestinian leadership – in Lebanon and in other places – at the time utmost silence has overshadowed all the talks about the retrieval of the occupied Golan and at the time the Syrian army was restructured in a way that decreased its skills and professionalism and left it exclusively under the control of the ruling faction and its interests.

2 – Keeping out the issue of Lebanon’s independence

The statement forgets to tie the assassinated and those who were subject to brutal killings to the nature of the issues and policies that the assassinated used to deal with especially the issue of independence. For this purpose, the statement referred to the “Arab homeland” that historically overshadows – according to the nationalistic zealots – all the elements of historic diversity. With similar concepts, the Syrian regime presents its oppression in Lebanon and uses such concept to rule Syria itself and in order to terrorize its domestic opponents, confiscate their lives and their rights as citizens and kill their ambitions for a democratic and diverse Syria.

3 – Intellectuals, Opposition and Nationalist Concepts

These remarks are certainly not meant to undermine the statement or belittle the bravery the number of its signers for its issuance without naming the US or Israel as the eternal and permanent faction behind all the crimes that has happened and are still happening is in itself a positive point. This might have been an act of pointing fingers at another killer that the statement couldn’t name. The call to hold on to freedom and rights across the region was another positive point. Yet, an event as tragic as the assassination of Gebran Tueni could have provoked something deeper and more powerful for he was the last in a series that has not stopped yet. Also, we’re not at the level of the assassination of premier Hariri and his comrades for we’ve become at the level where the Syrian regime is trying to exterminate everyone of the symbols of March 14 and these include free leading figures in opinion and media and on top of them Samir Kassir, George Hawi and Gebran Tueni, who regardless whether we subscribe to his opinion or not, was the most courageous on top of his reputable newspapers which opened much space for all Syrian intellectuals and opposition figures.

The killing of Gebran came along the lines of eliminating all what was left of the Spring of Damascus and all the disagreements within Syria itself. Here, I would like to quote what the opposition writer Sobhi Hadidi wrote. “The man [Tueni], and despite some differences in opinion with him, was one of the main friends of the Syrian struggle for a democratic Syria free of oppression.

In conclusion, it has become imperative that a discussion be started on the best ways for cooperation between fighters for Lebanon’s independence and freedom and the forces that want to see democratic change in Syria.

Maybe it is time to explain the difference and start a boycott with pan-Arab nationalism, the ghosts of its demands, illusions and its political structure which is getting closer to Islamic radicalism. Perhaps it is time to build relations with the nationalism that is based on democracy and that does not seek to crush the other opinion both domestically and in other countries. The best situated of these trends to initiate the boycott might be Syrian nationalism that could never tolerate the union even with Abdul-Nasser the great as well as Lebanese nationalism that could not handle 30 years of what was called the Syrian mandate. This has certainly become an urgent need lest the alliance between the authoritarian and radical Islamism keep on pushing our Arab world into hell from Palestine into Morocco including Lebanese and Syria after Baghdad. Otherwise, things will be out of place and we shall consider the statement to be merely an act of hiding behind the bush, and this is not our guess.

Bashir Hilal is member of the Democratic Left Movement in Paris. This article first appeared in Metransparent and was translated for Alternative with the consent of the author.