2 Syrian dissidents quit opposition council
Source: AP
By BEN HUBBARD
BEIRUT Two prominent Syrian dissidents said Wednesday they have quit the main opposition group that emerged from the year-old uprising against the regime in Damascus, predicting more would soon abandon what one of the men described as an "autocratic" organization.
The resignations from the Syrian National Council dealt another blow to the opposition, which has been hobbled by disorganization and infighting since the popular revolt against authoritarian President Bashar Assad started a year ago with protests calling for political reform.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International said Wednesday that Syrian security forces routinely torture people detained during the uprising. In a report, the London-based group said detainees are beaten with sticks, cords and rifle butts and sometimes suspended inside tires for further beatings. Others are sexually assaulted or killed.
One of the dissidents who resigned, Kamal al-Labwani, accused the leadership of the Syrian National Council of controlling the body's work while sidelining most of its 270 members.
Read more: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/2-syrian-dissidents-quit-1384272.html
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)This is the West's preferred group. Who it actually represents is an open question.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)It should come as no surprise that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily a force for good. The knee-jerk reaction that the rebels must be somehow better, or morally superior to the current government baffles me. Do people really have this narrow a view on history?
David__77
(23,220 posts)All too many adopt an automatic support for those who oppose the United States, because they rightly oppose US interventionism. They are the mirror to those that provide uncritical support for the opponents of backward, reactionary governments around the world. For instance, Baathist Iraq was full of real criminal abuses, but that does not mean that the Iraqi National Congress was in any sense superior.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)To only go back as far as my lifetime, our fear of a Soviet-aligned Afghanistan got us to the point where we are now in that country.
David__77
(23,220 posts)Afghanistan was never a hotbed of clerical radicalism before the Soviet occupation. But the US and its ally Pakistan did everything it could to bolster such radicalism as a counterweight to not just the Soviets, but to left-wing nationalism in general. The Afghan people most certainly would have defeated the Soviet imperialists in due time.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)radicals, which would have been even a better outcome for everybody.
David__77
(23,220 posts)The 1978 revolution, such that it was, was killed once the Soviets invaded, murdered the leader of the party, and replaced him with its puppet. If you know about the PDPA, the factions were Khalq and Parcham, respectively. The Soviets really effected regime change, and destroyed the basis of support for the government. It's too bad.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)at the time. PDPA begged the Soviets to send the troops for two years, the request they resisted
until Amin murdered Taraki in an internal coup. There is no way PDPA government could have
survived without Soviet military intervention. There was no "basis of support for the government"
in Afghanistan beyond 15 thousand or so members of PDPA torn apart by fractional rivalries.
The Soviets just wanted to fill the vacuum left after inevitable collapse of PDPA rule, before
it would be filled by Pakistan and US.
David__77
(23,220 posts)...that "15 thousand or so members of PDPA torn apart by fractional rivalries" formed the sole social basis of the state, then there is simply no progressive argument for sustaining such a regime. I don't believe that is true - there were plenty of urban dwellers who supported PDPA, and some poor farmers were won over by Khalqis as well.
With it conspiracies, occupation, and real crimes, the Soviet army served to destroy and not support the Afghan left movement. That said, I'm sure there were many honest progressives in the PDPA, who thought they were making the best choice for their country's modernization.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)intervention, talking on the phone with Taraki and having listened to another plea to send
ground troops to Afghanistan (to deal with anti-PDPA insurrection in Herat), suggested that PDPA
could deal with it itself by arming 50 thousands of its supporters (workers and students in Kabul),
with Taraki responding that there wasn't so many supporters they could enlist to fight. The Kosygin's
suggestion itself could be read as an ironic attempt at pointing out that the Afghan "revolution"
had no broad social base and very little ground for radicalism of its leaders (who promised that
most mosques will be empty in two years), as he certainly was aware of mobilizing capacity
of Kabul government. I would not argue that there was a "progressive argument for sustaining
such a regime", but clearly there were other arguments (having to do with defense, security and
geopolitics), which eventually persuaded Politburo to go in. From reading the book, as incredibly as
it sounds, it seems like the decisive argument for wavering Politburo members was a moral one -
they wanted to punish Amin for killing Taraki and to prevent massive terror campaign he was about
to unleash. It is clearly true that Soviet invasion at the very least united, if only temporarily, various
islamist and anti-communist opposition forces in Afghanistan. But it is hard to see how PDPA government
would have survived without Soviet intervention.
David__77
(23,220 posts)There were other opposition groups - like NCB - long before the SNC came into being. It seems as if SNC is a conduit for foreign powers - invited to conferences, recognized as "legitimate representative," etc. Meanwhile, the SNC elite are disconnected from Syria itself and are nontransparent. The Kurdish people, the Alawites, the Christians, the leftists - none of these have a home in the SNC, for good reason.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)as "legitimate representative of Syrian people". The foreigners needed a single entity to
simplify the transactions and the choice was made on the basis of predictability and ease
of control. Basically, they selected the most corrupt outfit with a largest proportion of
their paid intelligence assets already in it. Typically, for such dissident emigre organizations
like SNC this proportion is close to 100%.