Opposing (Some) Arab Opposition Groups
I have been arguing with some friends in the Middle East. Some wonder about my decision to go against Arab opposition groups even before they have a chance to reach power. I remind people that the Baath Party was an opposition group, and it too promised freedom and justice and even the liberation of Palestine.
We should not wait for the gallows to be mounted in order to express fierce opposition to opposition groups that have exhibited various signs of intolerance, deception, and subservience to reactionary forces. This applies to different opposition groups throughout the region.
It should be stated at the outset that no Arab regime deserves support – all of them lack electoral legitimacy, and all have violated the rights of their people. And all have failed in the larger issue of standing up to Israel and its occupation and war crimes. Furthermore, not a single Arab regime is free of corruption. But opposition to all Arab regimes without exception, should not lead one to endorse all Arab opposition groups without exception.
Many Arab opposition groups have been nothing but tools for some Arab governments. The Syrian Baathist regime, for example, used to sponsor its own version of Iraqi opposition groups, while Iraq did the same with some Syrian opposition groups.
Moreover, Gulf money has tainted more than one Arab opposition group. The case of the NATO-backed transitional council in Libya, the NTC, is now too fresh in our mind: the massacres and war crimes that have already been committed by the NTC justify opposition to it, even before it seized power.
It has proven itself to be unqualified to fit into the paradigm of new Arab governments based on the rule of law and freedom. This tool of NATO has even inexplicably requested the extension of the NATO mandate, when the latter justified its mission by reference to a UN Security Council resolution that spoke about defending civilians from the Gaddafi regime.
The Gaddafi regime fell, and Gaddafi was sodomized, tortured, and killed, but the Council that promised to bring democracy to Libya still wanted NATO to defend it – from its critics presumably.
Many opposition groups in the present-day Arab world are mere tools of tyrannical Arab governments. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has been close to Saudi Arabia for more than a decade, while the Libyan Transitional Council has been supported and armed by Qatar. An-Nahda’s leader, Rashid Ghannoushi, inaugurated his electoral victory with a visit to Qatar.
In other words, some Arab opposition groups may promise democracy and rule of law, while they carry the agenda of a sponsoring tyrannical government. The role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not hidden from the formation of the Syrian National Council. And the “president” of the Syrian Monitor of Human Rights – based in London and probably the most cited source on news on Syria in the world – Rami Abdulrahman, told the mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat: “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques is the most influential Arab leader in the Syrian street, more than any other Arab leader, for he enjoys the love and appreciation from sections of the Syrian street.”
That a president of a human rights council could be a fan of the Saudi King and its propaganda sheets, tells volumes about the political orientations of this group.
No, we should not wait until several Arab opposition groups reach power before we go after them. The writings on the wall are clear: some of those groups are intolerant, sectarian and carry reactionary agendas. It is our duty, if we truly care about the welfare of the Syrian or Libyan or Tunisian people, to speak out against those opposition groups who promise to take the people from one form of tyranny to another.
There are worrisome signs on Arab horizons – the Arab counter-revolutionary forces are regrouping and trying to hijack what began as genuinely popular movements. There is a danger that the Arab counter-revolution replaces one tyrannical regime with one that is both tyrannical and subservient to its own agenda. We can’t afford to stay silent: not about the tyranny of the current regimes, nor the tyrannies that are being prepared by the GCC to prevail in the Arab world.
RedditRelated Articles
- The Golden Era of Arab Atheism? | May 21 2013
- BDS and Its Agenda | May 14 2013
- Israel Bombs Syria, Again | May 05 2013
- Conflicting Messages on Syria: Obama’s Red Lines | May 02 2013
Blog Listing
Special Blogs
Comments
I second the first response by Anonymous: Asaad's (liberal) criticism of Arab regimes is the same as the criticism of Western liberals. You know, Yes Israel's occupation is vicious but the Arabs want to throw the Jews into the sea. His neutral comfortable position is de facto in support of the status quo.
Some people want us to believe that the only choice for Arab people is between oppression by a domestic tyranny and oppression by a foreign tyranny. True, the domestic tyrants have the apparatus of a police state, and the foreign tyrants have tons of money and propaganda vehicles (and in some cases tanks and drones and guns), but the truth that too many pundits desperately want to obscure is that in all cases the ultimate power rests in the hands of the majority (the "99%"). Only the people have the power to choose whether to submit or resist, to grant or deny legitimacy to aspiring rulers. Those who try to convince us that the cost of freedom and independence is too high and therefore out of "pragmatism" rule out this choice and limit the available options to this or that form of slavery are liars and cynical opportunists: as history proves, the cost of submitting is far more devastating and leaves deeper scars. We will pay dearly either way. The only question is whether our sacrifice will buy us freedom and ownership of our own countries, or buy us and our children and our children's children yet more slavery.
The question is whom you ask for help in you struggle for freedom. To ask Saudis or NATO is a bit odd to me, but you could have another ideas.
Or Iran?
From what I understand in this article, let's keep the Ba'ath regime because we're scared of an alternative. Does anyone still have faith that this regime is capable of implementing the reforms that the POPULAR movement in Syria had called for? Does anyone still believe that ALL the killings that have occurred are 'foreign gangs'? I certainly hope not.
The alternative in this case, let's say, the Muslim Brotherhood, is surely funded by Saudi and the GCC. That's obvious. But how about we give the people a chance to vote! They will make mistakes and chances are they will elect the Muslim Brotherhood and it's hard to believe that this is a worse option than the Assad regime.
"it's hard to believe that this is a worse option than the Assad regime" - yes, sure, it was hard to believe that something could be worser than Saddam, right? Of course, if millions of murdered and displaced is NOT worse, that the argument is a solid one.
Vote? You mean how about we give the Saudi a chance to buy an election?
And, by the way, As'ad NEVER said "let's keep the Ba'ath regime". He did say let's do NOT trust Saudi/USA/Israel backed "democratic opposition".
when the votes are bought off by Iran than thats OK right?
You see, you admit yourself that your dream is not possible :)
It is a Western gimmik - to call "free vote" a panacea as if vote in capitalist/colonialist world could be ever free. See, how far such vote get Greeks, for ex.
I have admitted nothing. You always talk about the Nato-Saudi Axis. What about the Russia-Chinese Axis?. What have the Russians to do with arab problems anyway. Only weak, sectarian Regimes need foreign Backing. How is a peaceful change is possible without elections ? How. Coups. Military Coups. Socialist Coups. Islamist Coups. I´m fed up with this.
please, tell me what state was ruined/bombed recently by "Russia-Chinese Axis"? At least tell me whom they threaten to bomb? Need I list all victims of NATO/Saudis? Or at least their latest victims?
Russians, at least, are more close to Arabs than USA, and, one more time, was NOT sighted bombing Arabs, unlike USA.
Of course, I would be very happy with independent states which do not need any backing. But one must face the reality.
And, coups and revolutions are not the same thing. Peaceful is nice, but not always possible, and elections is often not much better than a coup, only under other name.
Hahahahaha. If the chinese had the power, they would nuke the whole ME to get there oil. Or do you really believe in justice or moral values. Ask the Uighurs. This is how power works. No false talking about democracy. Just honest bombing.
Great article. Who are some of the genuine opposition groups on the horizon?
Hisbullah and atheist leftist are the only genuine opposition groups Assad accepts.
As'ad has good advice. Hold your rulers to account from Day One. No honeymoon period.
We should have a single standard of human rights across the world, with no favourites or pet hates.
Don't talk about Libya, Cuba, South Africa or Israel as "a special case", but rather go for a set of rights and values that EVERY country should give their people.
Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to choose their own government in free elections, the right not to be tortured.
If Libya -- Gaddafi or the LTC -- Saudi, the USA, China, Cuba, Israel, Palestine or anyone else falls below this standard, then say so. If they do something good, then praise the action.
Don't condemn countries or governments, rather condemn bad behaviour regardless of whether the perpetrators are black, white, Muslim, Jew, Christian or anything else.
This is the only way to make the future safe.
Post new comment