Burhan Ghalioun: There is no room for calm in Syria and Assad has three options

The Syrian opposition thinker, Dr. Burhan Ghalioun, confirmed today, Thursday, that "there is no room for calm and relative stability in Syria today, except by Bashar al-Assad's concession, or a coup within the regime, or by continuing the war until he is overthrown, indicating that there are only these three options."

In light of the rapid developments in events in Syria, which indicate a rapid deterioration in the military structure of the Syrian regime, and with the progress made by the Syrian opposition, Ghalioun said in an interview with the “Al-Modon Media” website, “Iran will try to cling to the current regime and obstruct the settlement, but it will fail because the country can no longer bear further collapse and deterioration in living conditions.”

He stressed that "there is no room for applying the Lebanese solution to Syrian society," noting that the Syrian conflict is not a sectarian conflict, and "all sects are united today on changing the corrupt and murderous regime," stressing that "there is no partition scenario in Syria yet."

Ghalioun added that "Russia was accusing Washington of wanting to divide Syria by creating a Kurdish state," noting that "Turkey considers that such a division threatens the Turkish state. It rejects the division, and this is the position of the United Nations, Russia, and many other countries."

Interview transcript:

First, what is Dr. Burhan Ghalioun’s reading of the timing of the battle that the opposition factions opened in Aleppo and beyond, and what are the goals of this battle and what is expected from it politically?

There is no doubt that what encouraged the launch of the battle at this time was the clear state of military weakness that Tehran and its militias found themselves in after the war in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Its opponents exploited it and the rapid results achieved by the fighters from the Syrian opposition were achieved, but the timing, despite its importance, does not provide any explanation for what is happening and what has happened so far. It is natural for those who decide to fight against an enemy party to choose the moment when they feel they are the strongest and that the other party is weak.

The timing is a purely military issue, but the political timing is more important, and it is what allowed this sweeping attack to take place. I mean the understanding reached between the many forces participating in the conflict in Syria since 2011, which allowed the opposition to enjoy both political and military cover, enabling it to achieve the gains we are witnessing now.

This international understanding did not come about in vain, but rather after a long experience with the regime and its main protector, Tehran, in which the concerned international parties failed to push the regime to cooperate to end the Syrian ordeal, which has had dire regional and international consequences, despite the support and assurances it promised regarding its survival. The matter ended with everyone realizing that there is no solution with the regime and that it must be changed.

This also means changing the relationship with Tehran, which has acquired it and is using it as a major card in its struggle against all other parties, including its Russian ally. This international understanding that has become clear today, the American, Russian, Turkish and perhaps the Arabs from behind, is what produced the new military initiative and gave the opposition the decisive and major role it is playing today.

This is what made Iran talk about Syria after Lebanon and Palestine as if it were its pure property and a monopoly that no one has the right to dispute with it, not even its own people. It is the one who has the right to appoint someone to rule it and control its existence, and the Syrians, Lebanese and Iraqis have no choice but to submit to its decision, and other countries that want to preserve their interests have no choice but to pass through Tehran and pay tribute for their passage.

This is the essence of what is happening today in Syria. It would not have happened without this international and regional consensus. We do not yet know its limits and what plans each party has to benefit from it. What matters to the Syrians is to defend their interests in it, at the core of which is liberation from the nightmare of the permanent coup regime, violence, monopolization, injustice, marginalization and arrest, if not killing based on identity.

What role does the civil and moderate opposition have in keeping pace with these Syrian developments and transformations with regional and international rhythms?

It is no secret that the Syrian political opposition, which is a diverse spectrum that was broken by the Iranian and then Russian military intervention and whose ranks were torn apart, did not have the ability to confront the regime, Iran and its militias. And it could not have worked in isolation from the countries that today share influence in Syria.

This is the situation of the regime itself, which has become a secondary or proxy player in the hands of Tehran in the first place. The war in Syria today is a complex war in which international, regional and internal Syrian powers are intertwined, and no Syrian party can exist and participate in the conflict from outside this intertwining.

As I mentioned, the opposition agrees with the factions and allied countries on the priority of breaking the ban imposed by Tehran on any amendment to the structure of the current Syrian regime and perpetuating Assad’s rule.

The role of the Syrian opposition, both civilian and military, in this military operation, in which it is the most prominent force and without which there is no solution to achieve the interests of the international parties, is to guarantee for the Syrians the achievement of the supreme goal, which is to put an end to the grinding crisis that the country has been experiencing for decades, and to work with the other parties to implement Security Council Resolution 2254 to reach a final settlement and lay the foundations for a new political system that guarantees the rights of all individuals to peace, security, justice, freedom and equality.

There are great fears of Syria being divided into 3 or more regions, and there is talk of imposing a de facto federalism?

There is no partition scenario yet. Russia has been accusing Washington of wanting to partition Syria by creating a Kurdish state. But Turkey considers such a partition a threat to the Turkish state. It rejects partition.

This is the position of the United Nations, Russia and many other countries. As for the nature of the coming regime: whether it will adopt the model of a central state or a federal state, this is a subject of discussion whose fate has not yet been determined between international powers, some of which do not hide their adherence to sectarian and ethnic division, and other powers keen to preserve Syrian unity, including the Arab countries, Russia and many European countries that are now looking forward to a stable state in Syria that will reduce the waves of immigration and absorb the Syrian refugees they want to return to their country.

How do you see all this conflict that may take ethnic and sectarian forms over the future of Syria and the region?

The conflict over Syria and in Syria is a political and strategic conflict, i.e. it relates to political choices (the form of government and administration, the transfer of power, representation of the people, and issues of legal and social justice), and to strategic choices related to regional and international conflicts in the region and dragging Syria into this or that choice.

Just as Turkey cannot wait, Tehran, which refuses to surrender, may resort to mobilizing more militias to prolong the war and demonstrate its ability to resist those who want to weaken its influence in Syria.

If this decision is implemented, it will be beneficial for the Syrian people. Otherwise, the matter will be limited to achieving the interests of other countries at their expense, as has happened so far. We hope that the current conflict and pressure on the regime will lead to a Syrian political settlement that opens the way for peace and a normal political life for the Syrian people. Otherwise, the war will continue between the parties.

Will Iran accept to submit to the will of other countries or will it insist on adhering to the current regime and obstructing any plan to achieve a settlement and exit from the permanent war?

I think Tehran will try but it will fail because the country can no longer bear further collapse and deterioration in living conditions. Even bread in current Syria is sold with a smart card, meaning it is rationed. Each person gets only two or three loaves of bread per day, electricity comes for two hours per day, the average salary of a working Syrian does not exceed $15, and prices are almost international. Syria is a powder keg. This is the last attempt to reach a political solution before a comprehensive explosion.

Democratic forces exist but no Syrian force has the margin of initiative today. The return of normal political life to the country is supposed to allow the formation of this democratic force that could not have grown and existed in a regime where the only newspaper is still the mouthpiece of the party and the prisons are filled with thousands of detainees whose families know nothing about them, just as was the case in Nazi prisons. But here they are distributed equally across all cities and neighborhoods.

Is there a possibility of a serious and effective dialogue with the regime that would end in something similar to the Syrian Taif agreement in the Lebanese style, i.e. the regime remaining at its head in exchange for strengthening the government’s powers? This would take advantage of Arab normalization with Damascus and the availability of an international atmosphere that indicates the possibility of dealing with the regime as a matter of fact and the lack of an alternative?

There is no room for applying the Lebanese solution to Syrian society. The Syrian conflict is not, in essence and fundamentally, a conflict between sects. If it were, it would have been resolved within days. The essence of the conflict in Syria is not sectarian, and all sects agree today on changing the corrupt and murderous regime. The solution lies in building a civil national state that treats all its citizens equally without discrimination. This is the demand of all Syrians from all sects, denominations, and nationalities.

Is there a possibility of success in proposing a new political project that reconciles the forces of the regime, the moderate opposition forces, and the armed opposition?

There is no longer a regime and no opposition in reality. There is a coup regime that rebels against the will of the people, including the social base that stood behind it in the past. It only survives and continues with the support of foreign countries that cooperate with it, the drug and human organ trade, and working for regional countries that are looking for followers to cover up their expansionist ambitions, and a people united behind all affiliations against a regime that has become nothing to them, regardless of their religious, sectarian, national, tribal and social orientations, except condemnation of permanent war, death, destruction and devastation.

What do you say about what the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Abu Muhammad al-Julani, announced about thinking about dissolving Hayat Tahrir al-Sham? How do you view this step and its dimensions?

It is noteworthy that in parallel with the progress of the "Dawn of Freedom" and "Deterrence of Aggression" march, the political discourse of all Syrians, individuals, political formations and even religious groups, is leaning towards adopting universal human values and emphasizing the unifying national principles and rising above the tendency in the past years to highlight ideological differences and sectarian and religious disparities. This is what was expressed in the statement of the Mufti of the Republic, as well as what was stated by al-Jolani, the leader of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, about the possibility of dissolving this same organization.

The reason, in my opinion, is that approaching power, and I mean state power, not leadership, requires candidates to show evidence of their ability to rise to the level of public responsibility and urges them to elevate their human thoughts and feelings and overcome their isolation from their organic fanaticism. In contrast, those threatened with leaving power become increasingly withdrawn and isolated.

Of course, we must encourage this trend by working against the policy of banning, exclusion, marginalizing and discriminating against others, in whatever form this discrimination takes, which leads them to adopt negative positions and ideas, to focus on the self and to develop rejectionist or exclusionary and discriminatory rejectionist tendencies hostile to the other, whose primary goal is to protect the self from skepticism and dissolution, and from accepting inferiority and moral resignation.

There is no solution to the problem of extremism, self-absorption, and disbelief in universal principles, whether religious or political, except in recognizing the same rights and mutual and equal respect. This is the source of integration and the feeling of belonging to the political or cultural group and the main criterion of justice. Violence produces counter-violence and hatred produces counter-hatred, just as affection produces affection and brotherhood produces brotherhood.

Source: Al-Maden Media