Imad Tahhan
- Articles
- Posted
Regarding the Myth of Western Support for a Democratic Transition in Syria
Over the last ten years, there have been several recurring main ideas in Western media and by Western politicians about the situation in Syria. These same ideas, have been and continue to be repeated by a particular segment of the Syrian opposition (especially those who magically went from being dedicated within the ranks of the regime throughout their life, and enjoying its advantages and corruption, to the ranks of a specific type of opposition all of whose actions and insults and hysterical cries, as well as its political mishaps, and “by pure coincidence”, are in the interest of the regime).
During the Geneva talks, the "opposition" Coalition sought assistance from a British "public relations" company, whose declared function was to facilitate its access to various international and Arab media outlets.
Among the things that this company was indirectly doing, and through some "media" personalities, was putting together key points used for media discourse, which would be circulated among the “spokespersons” who would be encouraged to abide thereby.
These key points have worked day after day, one interview after another, and one research after another, and over the many years, to build a set of myths and axioms the adherence to which has become one of the standards for opposition work, and anyone who deviates therefrom is immediately accused of treason or blasphemy. This would be done as part of a state of intellectual bullying through quite a few loudmouths who are paid by the West itself, at times through local councils and at other times through relief organizations, at yet other times through media groups, and in many cases through "civil society" organizations.
It might be impossible to limit all of these "axioms" in one place. You may need books to contain them, but we think it is useful to look at one of them that is the most frequently repeated.
The West and the US, Support Transition to Democracy
A large part of Western propaganda in Syria is based on the lie that the West supports the transition to democracy, versus rejection of that by "authoritarian countries", and what is primarily meant here is Russia and China.
The truth is, the West does indeed support "democracy", but only that which meets certain criteria that it imposes. The clear criterion that applies in all cases is: The West supports the results of democracy when it brings its agents to power, and stands against it when it represents a way out for a hostile country from the crises it is experiencing.
This is exactly the case in Syria, where the US seeks with all its might to prevent a democratic transition, because quite simply it will not only allow a radical change in all the now-controlling authorities in Syria, but even more, a true democratic transition in Syria will reunite it once again, and dry Jeffrey's swamp and rotten stagnant stability, which he sees as an ideal situation for Syria as a country and a people hostile to US interest, a country that is unacceptable to remain united and to begin with having a role in the regional map. Therefore, the US, whatever lies it says, it supports in practice the continuation and decay of the status quo, in all its details, and with all its personalities.
The US, a "supporter of democracy", did not refrain from supporting blatant and clear military coups, as it did in the past in Venezuela, and in several Latin American countries, and even in Syria itself during the period of post-independence coups, and in Iran in cooperation with the British against the government of Mosaddegh, as well as with many countries in our region, including Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein and his war with Iran.
Strategic Interests
The strategic interest that US politicians express in practice, whether through what they called the Deal of the Century, and through normalization agreements, as well as supporting the Zionist entity in the most impudent, direct, and permanent manner, deeply contradicts putting Syria on the path to recovery.
The Syrian particularity makes it in no way amenable to assimilation within the regional projects of normalization and humiliation, and this is crosscutting of the regime and the opposition, and is bigger than either. The American and the Zionist understand this fact the most, and therefore they want to end any geopolitical existence of this country. Since the existing international balance will not allow nor accept the partition of Syria in a "legitimate" manner, that is: internationally recognized, the solution, from the Zionist point of view, is to extend the life of the de facto partition and perpetuate it, in parallel with weakening and shattering Syrians as much as possible, by the great corruption forces and warlords, primarily from the Syrian sides, who see the world through the narrow angle of their petty and selfish interests.
In this way, the US thinks that they can reposition their forces around the world in a way that allows preparation for the major confrontation with China, which definitely requires limiting deployment of the depleted US forces around the world, which now occupies more than 800 military bases.
The Eurasian, Belt, and Road
Within this general vision, the interest of the US, as well as the Zionist, intersect with the necessity to prevent the passage of the two Eurasian projects, the Belt and the Road. These two projects pass through Syria, and they will not be completed without Syria's political, security, and economic stability. A stability of this kind cannot be completed without a comprehensive solution, without radical and deep change on the basis of Resolution 2254, without opening the door to sweeping away the historical agents of the West who have over many decades become deeply rooted in the various joints of the state apparatus, including the political.
On the other hand, the survival of the corrupt structures that gradually became linked to the West over the past decades is the best guarantee for the West itself, not only in keeping the crises alive, but also in deepening them, and in deepening the unproductive and subservient situation that our countries are experiencing in the economic sense.
The contradiction that the entire region is going through, and indeed the entire world, is not just a contradiction among international powers seeking to dominate, but among different models. The ability of China and Russia to bypass the Western world passes exclusively through breaking the system of unequal exchange established by the West since the mid-1960s. It also passes through breaking the Western hegemony over maritime trade and its prevention of land trade. Land trade exchange between neighboring countries, especially when talking about countries with deep civilization roots like those that occupy most of Asia and Africa, will lead to a complete transcendence of the West in the economic and technological sense. The Western model, pre-Sykes-Picot, was based on striking any interrelationships among countries in Asia and Africa, in return for the existence of dependency relations for all these countries with the Western center, based primarily on the maritime commercial activity.
Faced with trying to understand the economic and geopolitical dimensions of the existing international conflict, the joke of "American spreading democracy" becomes an extremely naive and rude joke.
