An Interview with
Ammar Bagdash, Secretary of the Syrian Communist Party
This interview with the
Secretary of the Syrian Communist Party, Ammar Bagdash, took place at the time of a public
meeting in Rome and a group-discussion about the causes, the evolution and
the consequences of the civil war in Syria—or, to put it another
way, about the attempted destabilization of a country that refused to take part
in the Imperialist domination of the Middle East.
The interview was conducted by Sergio Cararo,
Marinella Correggia,
and Maruizio Musolino
Why this attack on Syria?
Syria is a bulwark against North
American expansionism in the Middle East, especially after the occupation of Iraq. But the real ramrod behind this project
is actually Israeli president [Shimon] Peres, who has pursued this objective
since the 1980s. Syrian Communists
have come to call this project ‘The Greater Zion’. Syria has rejected all diktats by the US and Israel in the
Middle East, supported the Iraqi resistance, that of the Lebanese and the right
of Statehood for the Palestinians.
But how did the revolt, the
crisis and the civil war in Syria come into existence?
In the analysis of Syrian
Communists, the conditions were as much as anything the results of the
neo-liberal measures adopted in 2005.
This policy had three negative effects: an increase in social
inequality; social exclusion spread more and more throughout the suburbs of
Damascus; and a decline in the quality of life for the general population. This played to the advantage of the
reactionary forces, like the Muslim Brotherhood, who are supported by the lower
levels of the working class, especially among the rural proletariat. When we denounced all this in the
Parliament, we were accused of striking an ideological attitude, and of being
idiots.
In Syria, they wanted to recreate
what happened in Egypt and Tunisia.
But then these were two pro-imperialist countries. In the case of Syria, things were
different. It began with popular demonstrations in the rural areas of Daraa and
Idleb. But in the cities, there
were huge demonstrations in support of [President Bashir] Assad. Moreover, at the beginning, the police
did not shoot, but certain elements among the demonstrators did initiate violent
actions. In the first seven
months, there were more killed among the police and the army than in the other
camp. When the demonstrations were
no longer effective, they turned to terrorism by killing those most visible
(social leaders, public officials, journalists), attacking and sabotaging the
civilian infrastructure. The
government reacted by enacting certain reforms, like the adoption of
multi-partyism and greater freedom of the press, reforms that we supported. But the reactionaries rejected these
reforms. As Communists, we
understood this formula: the
debate and the actions had to be met with equal and opposite discussions and
actions. But, to reestablish
order. terrorism could only be dealt with by the sovereignty of the law.
Then we moved on to a third
stage. A real armed revolt. Attacks and targeted assassinations
signaled the beginning of the assault on Damascus. Next, the attacks were focused on Aleppo, with its
geographical position making it easier to re-supply with smuggled arms and provisions
from abroad. The government
responded by imposing the hegemony of the law. It should be noted that the interventions by the army and
the aerial bombardments took place in those areas where most of the civilian
populations had already fled. The
rebels reacted to the Syrian Army’s counter-offensive with barbarity, even in
areas where there were no combatants.
Then they laid siege to Aleppo.
Why did Syria resist? What does this show?
In the last ten years in the
Middle East, Iraq has been occupied, Libya forced to capitulate, but Syria has
not. Is this because of its
greater internal cohesion, its more powerful armed forces, stronger
international alliances, or because it has not yet suffered a direct military
intervention by the Imperialist Powers?
In Syria, unlike with Iraq and
Libya, there has always been a strong national alliance. The Communists have worked within the
government since 1966, without interruption. Syria could not have resisted by depending solely on its
military. It was able to resist
because it had a strong popular base of support. And it was able to draw support from its allies like Iran,
China and Russia. And if Syria is
still standing, the Imperialist crowned heads are going to roll because it
clearly shows that there are other ways to go. Ours is an internationalist struggle. A Russian expert told me, “The role of
Syria is like that of Spain in the war against Fascism.”
What effect could the events
in Egypt have on the current situation in Syria?
There is a dialectical relation
between what happened in Egypt and what is happening in Syria. The common basis is popular discontent,
but the Syrian resistance accelerated the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood regime
in Egypt, and that greatly helped Syria because it showed how the Brotherhood
was rejected by the people.
In a recent interview, Syrian
President Assad said, “In Syria,
we have checked the onslaught of political Islamism.” What do you think of that?
We, Syrian Communists, do not use
the category of ‘Political Islam.’
There is a certain diversity within Islam. Some, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are pro-Imperialist
reactionaries, and some are progressives, like Hezbollah and even Iran. I am not an fan of the Iranian model,
but they are our allies in the struggle against Imperialism. Since our Fifth Congress, we have
judged Iran on the basis of its position on Imperialism. Our watchword is: For an International Front Against
Imperialism.
In Italy, a large part of the
Left thinks the rebels are fighting a Fascist regime, the Assad
government. What can you say to
such a position?
If we’re talking about the
definition of Fascism—a reactionary movement that employs violent means in the
interests of monopolistic capitalism—in Syria, monopoly capitalism is not the
dominant order. It is, rather, the
rebels who represent the interests of Big Capital. As History teaches us, revolts are not always revolutions. Think about the Nicaraguan Contras,
about Franco’s forces in Spain, and there are others.
But is the opposition to Assad
all reactionaries? Or, as shown by
the internal conflict between the Free Syrian Army and the militant Jihadists,
or, in the last few days, between the Kurds and the Jihadists, are there
progressive elements with whom we could initiate a dialogue?
Among the oppositionists, some
have spent many years in Syrian prisons, and we have demanded and fought for
their freedom. These who oppose
Assad have, however, all been against foreign interference or intervention. Some of them live in Damascus and we
work together for a national dialogue.
Even Haytham Menaa of the Democratic Coordination condemns the use of
violence by the opposition army along with any interference from abroad. Others like Michel Kilo come from the
Left, but have betrayed these ideas, and, anyway, they cannot change the
reactionary nature of this rebellion.
How do you explain the
intensification of the differences between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and how do
these then effect the divisions within the rebel militias?
It’s true, the influence and the
role played by Qatar has diminished, while Saudi Arabia’s influence has
grown. The whole thing about the
confrontation with the Kurds is another story. There were confrontations between the Kurds of the Kurdish
Democratic Union and the militant Jihadists of al Nusra, but there were also conflicts
between diverse Kurdish groups.
What’s happening with the
Palestinians who are living in refugee camps in Syria?
I recently met an official of the
PLO and he told me, “If Syria falls, adieu to Palestine.” Hamas sometimes acts in great haste, has
made many errors and caused a lot of problems. We can say that this organization, which belongs to the
Muslim Brotherhood, is reverting to its origins and will continue under the
wing of Qatar. But this is also
dangerous for them. Now, after
what has happened in Egypt, what will happen in Gaza? The majority of militants who are in the Palestinian refugee
camps in Syria are not Palestinians.
The majority of Palestinians are totally against all interference in
Syrian domestic affairs.
In Yarmouk, 70% of the
inhabitants are Syrians because the refugee camps in Syria are not ghettos like
in other countries. There are
still fighters in Yarmouk, but the Syrian population has left. The Executive Committee of the PLO has
come twice to Syria to ask about the protection of the refugee camps. Yarmouk was overrun by al Nusra with
help from Hamas in an attempt to provoke the Army, which had received orders
not to react.
We don’t talk about it much,
but what is the role of Jordan in the crisis and the civil war in Syria?
The Jordanian monarchy has always
collaborated with the Imperialists, and the Muslim Brotherhood is intensely
active there. Jordan accepted the
presence of the US troops on its territory, and the fourth attack against
Damascus actually came from Jordanian territory.
And what game is Israel
playing in Syria?
Israel supports the armed rebels,
but when they don’t hit their assigned targets, it’s the Israeli air force that
picks up the slack. This happened
in Damascus and also a few days ago in Latakia.
How is this tragedy going to
play out?
We cannot hope to achieve any
social progress, or with democracy, if we are under attack from external
forces. The daily goal is to
defend our national sovereignty and protect the living conditions of our people. As I said at the ANSA, the principal
means for ending this Syrian massacre is first to stop all aid to the armed
opposition from the reactionary and Imperialist countries. Once the foreign aid is stopped, we can
put an end to all military operations, including those of the Syrian
government. And resume a
democratic process with legislative elections and political reforms, something
obviously impossible at this stage of the armed struggle. The political future of Syria will be
decided in elections, notably the presidential elections of 2014.
Original Syrian translated by the
CPF.
Translation from the French by
CM/P
No comments:
Post a Comment