Only us

Simon Fisher describes a recent visit to Syria

We met up at Heathrow on a grey day in early September: an eclectic group consisting of our organiser, the reverend Andrew Ashdown, three members of the House of Lords, an architect, an NGO worker with experience in the region, and me, with a background in peacebuilding. We were responding to an invitation from heads of faith communities in Syria, both Christian and Muslim, to come and learn at first hand about their situation.

We were also going to meet as wide a range of people as we could – to express our solidarity, to understand more deeply the reasons for the suffering of the Syrian people, and to bring back some useful insights to share with people in the UK and beyond.

We all were – and still are – exasperated by the current policies of the British government towards Syria. The government seems to have learned little from armed interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The strenuous efforts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to stop us going only reinforced our determination to go.

I am part of a team working with Syrian activists who come to Lebanon for brief periods of recuperation and training. I wanted to get a firsthand ‘feel’ for their context in order to work more effectively with them.

We spent a week in Damascus, Ma’loula, Aleppo and Latakia. Travel was difficult and time consuming, especially to and from Aleppo, largely because direct routes tended to go across areas held by the armed opposition. We snaked across large areas of desert and through many devastated settlements and towns at high speed, rapidly switching direction when the changing military situation required it. Armed soldiers accompanied us almost wherever we went. This, of course, was a huge compromise ethically and politically, but sadly inevitable in the circumstances.

The week was a hectic mix of travel and meetings. In addition to the Grand Mufti of Syria, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, and several other heads of faith communities, we met senior members of the regime, including the president and the minister for reconciliation, and with the leader of the internal opposition.

No official agenda

The last three individuals gave us as much time as we wanted without their officials and with no official agenda or statements. We also managed to meet with a wide range of more ‘ordinary’ people: teachers, doctors, survivors of attacks by the armed opposition – such as members of the Yazidi community – Internally Displaced People (IDPs) and some who had previously been detained by the regime.

We came away with some challenging observations – challenging both for us, in getting a fair hearing for them here in the UK, and for all those who still see Syria as essentially a conflict between ‘good’, pro-democratic ‘rebel’ forces and evil, dictatorial ones.

First, no party to this conflict has clean hands: the multiple armed oppositions, the Syrian government, the US, UK, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran… all have committed indiscriminate killing.

Second, the moderate armed opposition, on which UK and other Western foreign policy is predicated, seems nowhere to be found in any organised form. Everyone we spoke to said the same, as did a recent Parliamentary Select Committee report. Its chairman described them as ‘phantoms… No such force exists’.The armed opposition is divided into Isis, on the one hand, and Jabhat al-Nusra and its close allies on the other – both are ruthless Islamists. One person said that the only difference between them is that Isis beheads people who don’t conform and Al-Nusra shoots them. If either comes to power in Syria, the outlook would, in our view, be considerably worse than it is now.

Third, people living in government-held areas are, for the most part, living reasonably well in the circumstances, with functioning shops, schools, hospitals and genuine religious freedom. This is all the more remarkable in that seven million of them are IDPs from areas controlled by Isis and Al-Nusra. The implicit deal is that provided people do not question the right of president Bashar al-Assad and his family to rule he will aim to provide the conditions for people to live and prosper as they wish. Many people are buying into this. One teacher said to us: ‘I hate the word freedom. Freedom to me means guns and bullets… We had order and peace before they brought us freedom.’ People continually asked us why no one outside Syria seems to listen to what they want. Many are terrified of the consequences if the government were to be toppled.

Creative initiatives

Creative initiatives are being taken in regime-held areas despite the war. We met, for example, a (woman) parliamentarian who is working to build young people’s organisations in several places, and a university lecturer who is teaching nonviolent communication to his students. So much more might be happening if the war had not intervened. The minister of reconciliation said to us: ‘The gun has stolen our revolution.’ There are many people living under the government who are potential resources for peace and justice, waiting until more peaceful circumstances make it possible to work for change from within.

Fourth, in the light of the above, UK foreign policy seems sadly devoid of what should be the essential priority: sustainable peace for the people of Syria. Concerns about international terrorism, and wider strategic concerns in the Middle East and beyond, take precedence. In this mix the removal of the regime is apparently a given. We did not come back as apologists for the regime. The government is highly imperfect and autocratic. It has, along with some of the other parties to the war, possibly committed war crimes. But it – or a settlement in which it is a major player – is, from our soundings, still seen as better for the people of Syria than all the alternatives currently on offer.

Fifth, media narratives here about Syria are simplistic and do not adequately represent any of the realities above. It is crucial to question the truth conveyed by the main outlets. The White Helmets, for example, are feted internationally as valiant first aiders, but serious questions need to be asked about their origin, work, who backs them and where some of the money given to them ends up.

Sixth, the isolation the ‘international community’ imposes on people living in government-held areas means that the voices of many in Syria are not heard. It has been a great surprise that many of the churches in the West are unwilling to visit or simply talk with their counterparts in Syria. The World Council of Churches refused to allow a member of staff to come with us – Lambeth Palace, likewise, refused any association with our visit.

Only us

A week, of course, does not make us experts – far from it. We see ourselves more as raising (im)pertinent questions and, hopefully, provoking productive discussion. The recent ending of the struggle for Aleppo has changed the situation somewhat since our visit – but war, and misery, for many is by no means over.

Speaking personally, this visit has made me question further the motivations for our foreign policy. We have to believe that those in power are not stupid or wilfully myopic. However, one has to ask why current policy, which appears to involve implicit support for Al-Qaeda linked groups, remains as it is.

For those wanting to tackle some of the roots of this tragic issue, an excellent starting point is to reflect on what we really need for our own security, and to build an alternative vision.

The UK approach to national security is dominated by military responses, when many of the threats to our security (climate change, inequality, healthcare, polarised communities…) are worsened by these, and need more imaginative solutions. We cannot, and should not, buy our security at the expense of others. When we realise this, politically as well as socially, we can start to build a sustainable, global security in which situations like that in Syria are seen as ‘a problem to solve between us’ rather than another war to be won – or lost.

The visit left me holding up a mirror. When I looked out at Syrians I kept seeing myself. There was, and is, no me and them. Only us.

Simon gave the 2004 Swarthmore Lecture: Spirited living: waging conflict, building peace.

Further information: www.rethinkingsecurity.org.uk

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment