Syrian Exiles are no Government in Exile

Posted: November 4, 2012 in Sideviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A melange of deserters, NWO-satraps and bandit chiefs will probably tomorrow, on 4 November, in Doha in Qatar, which is predestined for such subversive activities, establish a “Syrian government in exile”, after once again “all differences” of the different fractions will be put aside.

Here one would like to comment immediately that “government in exile” is a term that is used for a genuine, real government, which was forced by not representable reasons for them, to leave the seat of government of their country and their country.

However, when a bunch of sinister or at least opaque dudes in comfortable under pleasant climatic conditions and for the money of other countries founds some institution, so this has to undoubtedly be named somehow different than a “government in exile”.

At best, probably as “shadow cabinet”; but in any case, this concrete “government” was not exiled by anyone to anywhere. It is then already a secondary aspect that so far, all attempts to form anything under a “set aside of all differences” have ended with a silent “pfft”. Or even with more obscene sounds.

The last example is the formation of some sort of unified military command of the rebels, which then allegedly deposed into the “liberated territories” and since then, they have disappeared from the limelight. In this respect, one can also be sceptical about the “government in exile”.

Thereby, it is not even about the structure itself, but about whom of the plinking bandits in Syria will actually be ready to subordinate to this structure, and what the “government in exile” does with those who are not willing to subordinate. If nothing, why should anyone ever subordinate himself to the command of some fellas, which have nothing in common with the deprivations “at the front”.

After a condign dramatic pause, the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation has indicated that it will not accept the “government in exile”. Even more, it will even not accept it as an independent subject. The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry is not so much directed towards the “exiles” but in direction of their sponsors:

Gatilov - Twitter

Gatilov – Twitter

However, no one namely seems to still be able to remember the political reforms which were initiated by President Bashar al-Assad. Of course, they are not yet completed, but important milestones were taken – there were elections in the regional offices, parliamentary elections and the adoption of a new constitution. And at it, the electability of the President, in addition to a waiver of the fixation of the power of the Baath Party, is the most important element of this new constitution.

Previously, the elections were actually nothing more than a referendum, which means, there was only one candidate, and one could only be in favour or against. Now this is different. Thereby, there is nothing good for Syria in such a system – one can see immediately what is able to threaten the minority. If the majority votes for its candidate, the balance is immediately lost, whose guarantor was the rule of the minority. And it contains the opportunity for the West and the Gulf States to achieve their goals on a non-military way.

The unleashed war against Syria has already brought the internal situation at the edge of a derailment. The previous policy of Assads has, certainly with some hook or crook, yet established a relatively stable, although not a hundred percent fair, system in which the confessional differences gradually declined and were replaced with a national consciousness.

The task of these secular projects was the creation of a nation. Of a Syrian, Egyptian, Libyan Yemeni, and so on, nation, so that the people see themselves first as Syrians and only secondarily define themselves as Sunni or Shia. This is obviously a serious and long-term undertaking, which has not really succeeded in all these countries. And now we’re to the point where this “secular experiment” in Syria has almost failed.

At least, at the current stage. The dismantling of the Syrian society is progressing rapidly, and even in the case of a victory (the longer the crisis lasts, the less likely it is the victory) of Assad, it will be extremely difficult to again gather people around an idea. Assad’s political reform would now inevitably lead to the situation that the next head of state is a Sunni. And one, that is not supported by the minorities, but enforced by the majority by virtue of their mass.

The longer the war in Syria continues, the more hardened get the fronts, and the radical forces will have more chances. Especially the Salafis (Salafists). If the war, however, will not last long anymore, then Syria will repeat the fate of Egypt, where the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood is currently in power. A Tunisian variant, in which the Islamists have to reckon with a very strong secular opposition, is for Syria already virtually impossible. The war is poison for compromises and balanced solutions.

Egyptian parliament.

Egyptian parliament.

If Salafi forces come to power, there will be a “big party” in Saudi Arabia, because the kingdom is precisely backing them. Then the Saudi project to disintegrate Syria and to extract a Sunni territory thereof, which will later be able to expand in all silence towards the east (into the Sunni areas of Iraq) will triumph. Therefore, a protracted war with the growing radicalization of the population is needed.

Qatar, however, is very interested in a speedy victory over Assad. Then the radical currents would not become the mind-set of the masses, and the creatures from Qatar will have a good chance. In this case, the Saudis suffer another defeat in the “Arab Spring”, which can lead into a painful sequel: every defeat rattles at the ruling elite, and the Saudis (House of Saud) are no exception.

Qatar not only pursues its geo-economic goals, but it also seeks a position as a major player in the Middle East. In this context, the disruption of the neighbouring kingdom is certainly one of the aims of the ambitious, voluminous Emir.

That is also the reason that Emir Al-Thani appears more aggressive than the Saudis. He is the representative of the approach that provides a “peacekeeping contingent” or the military interference by “Arab States”. Accordingly, it is probably Qatar, from where are the attacks against the Syrian leadership are financed and coordinated.

For the Americans, it is meanwhile relatively unimportant who will be the “King of the Hill” in Syria: both variants are acceptable. Both variants can be arranged by the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Therefore, no direct and visible interference at the current phase.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s