Over the past week the world has debated the rights and wrongs of military action in Syria. I have listened as people questioned whether the targeted missile strikes by the US, France and Britain were necessary and whether this represents a failure of diplomacy. As a proud Syrian, committed to furthering human rights, I had hoped that a solution would have been reached by now through diplomacy.
But this debate neglects the fact that, for years, the Assad regime blocked any attempt at dialogue. As a member of the Syrian Opposition UN delegation I saw at first hand how Assad’s regime refused to engage. Time and time again the regime has shown it does not want peace, nor is it serious about reaching a fair solution. Just a few short months ago, the world’s diplomats once again gathered in Geneva, determined to help secure Syria’s future. Howeve,r once again, the regime refused to consider compromise. Even the UN envoy for Syria blamed the regime for the “golden opportunity missed” in efforts to reach a solution. Soon after Assad refused to engage with the UN, he scurried to the Russian resort of Sochi, hugging Vladimir Putin for the cameras, and thanked Russia for its backing.
This diplomatic stalemate includes the use of vetoes on addressing the use of chemical weapons. Russia in fact used its UN Security Council veto four times to block draft resolutions seeking to establish investigations of chemical weapons. This diplomatic impasse is important in explaining why, for some, last week’s strikes were a welcome although difficult last resort. When a peaceful solution fails and when the regime and its allies reject genuine dialogue, military action is, sadly, perhaps the only option. Last week’s strikes were a step toward undermining the regime’s military capabilities, specifically the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian opposition has stressed the importance of sparing Syrian civilians by taking all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties and prevent the Assad regime and its allies — and terrorists — from using civilians as human shields.
Over the past few days I have listened as people talked about whether Assad crossed a “red line.” But for Syrians, red line after red line was crossed many years ago. A recent report by Human Rights Watch found that the regime was responsible for the majority of 85 documented chemical weapons attacks between 2013 and 2018. Last week inspectors from the International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have tried to enter Douma to begin their investigation into the alleged gas attack. However, experts have warned that key evidence had probably already been removed or tampered with. The regime allows the world to see only what it wants people to see. An ethos of control, is after all, at the heart of dictatorship.
I listened in horror last week as a minority in the UK, where I now live, have tried to defend Assad. When Bashar Assad took office in Syria, some Syrians did believe that the young president would make a difference in the country’s ongoing desire for democracy. I remember how people hoped and prayed he might bring together the people of Syria in an open dialogue that would positively reflect on the future of our country. But rather than increasing our freedoms, he broke our hearts by crushing them further. The truth is, now more than ever, we cannot look openly at the reaction within Syria, because Syria is not a free country — people are afraid to say anything that may lead them or their family to come to harm. It is worth remembering that this long and bloody civil war began in 2011, with a simple call for democracy.
I still believe in democracy and the importance of dialogue — as do the vast majority of Syrians. We must work toward the full implementation of the Geneva Declaration, including a comprehensive transitional body with full executive powers. If we don’t achieve this, we will not end the conditions that can enable terrorism to infiltrate. Anyone who rejects terrorism must surely therefore be committed to securing greater democracy in Syria. The answer to Syria’s problems will never be terrorism and more violence — it is not what we want. Syrians have seen enough violence. Why do people insist that we must choose between terrorists and dictators? Instead our hope is to be free to choose our own leader, democratically, through elections. This has been my dream since I was a small child, growing up just outside Damascus.
As Syrians, all we want is an end to the conflict and an end to the suffering of civilians. All attacks against civilians by the regime and its allies must be stopped. This includes chemical weapons — inflammable napalm, white phosphorous, chlorine and sarin, but also the barrel bombs and artillery bombardment which have already killed so many. The international community also has a responsibility to bring Assad and his allies to justice and assume a unified position in bringing those behind attacks in front of the International Criminal Court. Evidence of atrocities is being collected by international organizations and I hope this evidence will soon be used to secure justice.
Syria was my home, it’s where I was born, where my son was born and where my family lived for generations. Members of my own family have been killed as a result of the violence, and I fear every day for those friends and family still left behind. The conflict has already claimed up to half a million lives, left one million Syrian children orphaned and displaced half the pre-war population from their homes. Please don’t use skepticism to doubt the very real suffering that is still going on. In a world of cynicism and conspiracy theories I hope that people at least believe that Syria has suffered enough. Real victory will, after all, be declared only when Syria is a free country, with democracy and human rights at its core.
– Bahia Mardini is a human rights campaigner and the founder of Syrian House, an organization dedicated to helping Syrians in the UK access information and support.
