Clinton and the Threat of Organized Opposition
Published in Addustour
(Jordan) on 3 July 2011
by Nawaf Abulhaija (link to original)
(Jordan) on 3 July 2011
by Nawaf Abulhaija (link to original)
Translated from
by Jodi Rider.
Edited by Janie Boschma.
Last Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented a statement to us about the situation in Syria, saying that the time has come for the Syrian president to begin reform (or else it will face organized opposition).
The truth is that if I were a member of the Syrian opposition, then I would feel a mixture of anger and disgust. As for [the reason] why, it is because Clinton speaks as if Syria were an American state and as though she — the secretary of state — were in charge of the opposition and is ready to issue orders on behalf of this opposition, so that it acts in a systematic manner and is organized in its actions and activities against the Syrian government.
Her speech also arouses the anger of every nationalist who believes in the independence and sovereignty of his country because the secretary speaks from a superior position, as if she is a maestro directing the demonstrations and protests in Syria. And if that is the case, why does Clinton call for dialogue and action, and not press the opposition to immediately agree to go to the table for open dialogue on July 10?
The secretary of state's speech creates the impression that the Syrian opposition is purely manufactured by America and it can act chaotically if the State Department — or more accurately, the American administration, — wants it to and become organized when the American administration wants it to be so.
If experience has already shown that it is not possible to impose democracy on people through paratroops, missiles or occupation — as is the case with (the current) democracy in Iraq after the American occupation — then this fact applies to Syria as well. Syria announced that it was ready to transform into a democratic, multi-party, civilized nation to the extent of completely changing its constitution. So why does the secretary of state insist on the time factor? Why doesn't she issue her directives to those with the ability (those who oppose dialogue with the Syrian government) to commence dialogue, find out the Syrian government's intentions and put their statements to the test?
What is certain is that the American administration knows the truth about what is going on in Syria in detail, including the existence of peaceful demonstrations demanding what is right, as well as the existence of (organized) armed men whose objectives are not the same as those of the Syrian people, but rather destruction and creating the chaos on the street that Condoleezza Rice (secretary of state for the Bush Administration) called for.
The American administration ought to follow the Russian leadership's example by strongly appealing to the Syrian opposition to enter into dialogue with the state — before it is too late. Time is really not in favor of the dark forces that reject the civilized, democratic nation that Syrian hearts and at their head, their very leadership, long for.
The truth is that if I were a member of the Syrian opposition, then I would feel a mixture of anger and disgust. As for [the reason] why, it is because Clinton speaks as if Syria were an American state and as though she — the secretary of state — were in charge of the opposition and is ready to issue orders on behalf of this opposition, so that it acts in a systematic manner and is organized in its actions and activities against the Syrian government.
Her speech also arouses the anger of every nationalist who believes in the independence and sovereignty of his country because the secretary speaks from a superior position, as if she is a maestro directing the demonstrations and protests in Syria. And if that is the case, why does Clinton call for dialogue and action, and not press the opposition to immediately agree to go to the table for open dialogue on July 10?
The secretary of state's speech creates the impression that the Syrian opposition is purely manufactured by America and it can act chaotically if the State Department — or more accurately, the American administration, — wants it to and become organized when the American administration wants it to be so.
If experience has already shown that it is not possible to impose democracy on people through paratroops, missiles or occupation — as is the case with (the current) democracy in Iraq after the American occupation — then this fact applies to Syria as well. Syria announced that it was ready to transform into a democratic, multi-party, civilized nation to the extent of completely changing its constitution. So why does the secretary of state insist on the time factor? Why doesn't she issue her directives to those with the ability (those who oppose dialogue with the Syrian government) to commence dialogue, find out the Syrian government's intentions and put their statements to the test?
What is certain is that the American administration knows the truth about what is going on in Syria in detail, including the existence of peaceful demonstrations demanding what is right, as well as the existence of (organized) armed men whose objectives are not the same as those of the Syrian people, but rather destruction and creating the chaos on the street that Condoleezza Rice (secretary of state for the Bush Administration) called for.
The American administration ought to follow the Russian leadership's example by strongly appealing to the Syrian opposition to enter into dialogue with the state — before it is too late. Time is really not in favor of the dark forces that reject the civilized, democratic nation that Syrian hearts and at their head, their very leadership, long for.