Questioning the Ownership of Voices in Conflicts.
By Intibah Kadi
1 August 2018
The horrific 2013 Lattakia and 2018 Sweida Massacres in Syria both were met with international “mainstream media” (MSM) silence. In the five years between these two massacres, thousands of other events missed being covered by the MSM or at best received scant attention. Instead, fabricated events are promoted and done to death as representing the real stories of Syria, the most notable being that of BBC Panorama’s “Saving Syria’s Children”, the “White Helmets” phenomenon (which does exist) and, the most dangerous of all, the alleged chemical weapons attacks. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5].
Is this failure after all these years to get the truth out
into the more commonly read media the fault of activists and their supporters?
Can it merely be attributed to the determination of the forces that wish to
bring the Syrian government down to silence the truth? If one maintains that high profile activists
for the truth about Syria have made inroads in informing the wider public in the
West, then did the recent Sweida massacres get a better coverage in the MSM? CBS News, Agent France Presse and Reuters
reported on it, but these were not taken up widely as news items by other MSM.
Reuters repeated the mischievous questions of Walid Jumblatt, leader of a
section of the Druze, conveniently ignoring local facts on the ground as to the
known identity of some of these attackers and of course the backers of such
terrorists. [6], [7].
Or merely, has the case all these years been that the
reports and analysis of the real issues pertaining to Syria are discussed in
forums and media that have the readership and support of the “already
converted”? Are these in some cases “echo chambers” as some have claimed? And,
if this is the case, why did it never go beyond that? Could there be other
reasons why there is almost no success in getting these stories out to the
wider media?
In the early years of the Syria defence movement, the
activists were sticklers for ensuring accuracy and integrity in their reports
and advocacy activities. Syrians were firmly in charge of and in control of
their movement. They also knew humility and honesty was necessary for the
credibility of their work and hence needed to be open and real in meeting and
dealing with justified criticisms about Syria and her government, ensuring they
never were dismissed as “propagandists” and manufacturers of false narratives.
They knew that they had to maintain the moral upper ground and walk the talk
when exposing the complicity of much of the mainstream media in the war machine
targeting the Syrian state.
The precursor to the largest Syrian led Facebook group was
called “Peaceful Reforms”, with mostly Syrian and other Levantine activists in
it who endeavoured to turn around Syrians and others from the region who were
buying the narrative and sectarian talk of the Free Syria Army (FSA), and
remember, when it gradually became evident that the attack on the State and
people of Syria was taking on a “Islamist” nature some of the FSA supporters walked
away from them. After all these years it is a given that this was happening but,
in the beginning it was not something talked about. It was Ghassan Kadi who
first wrote about the employment, fermentation and recruitment based on
Islamist, fundamentalist passions in the effort to topple the Syrian government
and that those movements had an axe to grind with the Syrian government.[8]
This is lost on the more recent activists who largely demonstrate
they are oblivious of the history of the movement, taking for granted the hard
won gains, achievements and shared knowledge of the movement and treating them as
something that was always known. It was this level of honesty, humility and
openness for dialogue with almost anyone that the earlier activists displayed
that slowly and surely won them friends and made inroads into opening minds
among some journalists in the MSM or other widely read media and people of
influence. Skilled journalists can always find ways to get subtle messages
across without losing their jobs. Journalists do change jobs too. Relationship
building with suitable people of influence in the media was important. Every day
we see evidence in the media of reports that surprise us with their honesty.
Even if these are dismissed as cynical displays of “balanced reporting”,
nevertheless they surely have some value, and on this premise, the efforts of
the earlier activists were made.
Did the Syrian activists and their friends lose out on their
careful relationship building and long term strategies of attracting the support
of potentially open minded journalists from the mainstream media? If so, at
what point did they start to lose that battle and endeavour? Were there any
particular issues that caused a steep decline or division between the serious
advocate for Syria and their approaches to potential allies in mainstream
media?
The early activists endeavoured to operate in a demeanour of
politeness, civility, showing respect, demonstrating concern and willingness to
help fill in the gaps of knowledge or understanding of these journalists and
other people of influence. They knew that in a sense they were ambassadors for
Syria. Building bridges to understanding was in the uppermost mind of every
serious activist’s mind. Even when the chances of getting these points across
successfully were exceedingly slim, never was it acceptable to pursue, persecute
and bully media or other influential figures that they disagreed with. With the future always an unknown, how was
one to know whether any of these media or influential people may at some point
start questioning and start listening, at least on some points?
In recent times, negative, somewhat aggressive engagement by
a number of fairly newly arrived “Syria activists” with mainstream media journalists
has, in effect, at least temporarily, caused a shift in focus on emerging, more
big picture issues, with “combatants” getting bogged down in details and
technicalities, whilst not putting these into the perspective of a wider
understanding of why the war on Syria is wrong. Perhaps this more militant approach is in line
with particular anti-imperialist activist frameworks commonly employed in the
West amongst its adherents. Another
issue of concern in this contact between mainstream media and the newer “Syria
activists” is that some of their treatment of research, fact finding and
debunking has been called into question and it appears that there have been
instances where this has given their critics in the MSM ammunition. One area of
concern for the Syria defence movement is that these newer “Syria activists”
became engrossed in a narrow range of topics which tended to drown out other
important issues and voices from the region.
Contrary to the overwhelming anti-Empire support activists
gave to Iraq during its invasion and all its consequences, when those same
forces attacked Syria, and for similar reasons, Syria did not receive such
support and solidarity. As a matter of fact some leading figures in the Gaza
Flotilla movement supported the Free Syria Army (FSA). Nevertheless, a
development in the Syria support movement occurred with the entrance of a new
breed of “Syria activists” which included some members of this category and
some who had been active on Iraq and Palestine in the alternative media. Their
motivations for activism tended to be steeped in broader political views and
causes compared to the Indigenous based ones who were mostly concerned with fighting
for their country and culture. In previous years to their arrival, bringing
these international, “anti-Empire” activists on board for Syria was a huge and
mostly futile struggle. Midway through the war on Syria a number of them
suddenly turned up.
By mid to late 2013 it had become clear to Syria’s enemies
that taking down the government of Syria was no walk in the park. Moderators of
social media (Facebook) based Syria defence groups noticed a surge in what appeared
to be supporters from predominately the West. Suddenly, the largest Syria support
group on Facebook experienced a change in tone in the group and its dynamics
where a whole new culture emerged incompatible with the Syrian culture and
existing modus operandi. Instead of focusing on fact finding to debunk the lies
of the MSM, the tone changed to panic ridden posts, discussions about the
imminent bombing of Syria, even nuclear strikes on Syria and also on Yemen
which were the work of pop-science fantasy and irrationality. On 11 June, 2012,
in his own article, Ghassan Kadi foresaw the potential for these problems to
affect the movement [9] and later on wrote more on it including publishing an
article about the USA having repeatedly tried and failed to bomb Syria.[10]
Many of the newcomers disappeared as quickly as they had
appeared but some remained, working to ensure their particular frameworks for
understanding the world were adopted for the case of Syria. They refused to
accept that the indigenous activists had their own frameworks and approaches
and this caused divisions. In time most of Syrians and others from the region who had
come to engage with the supporters of their cause walked away returning to
their own Arabic language based groups. From
there, fairly rapidly, the newcomers moved the movement away towards Twitter; a
place where most Syrians don’t engage in. However, Twitter was a good way to
reach journalists from the MSM and other people of influence. On that forum, in
recent times, highly volatile exchanges have occurred between the new activists
speaking on behalf of Syria and MSM journalists accused of being biased. The
question is whether this “war” on Twitter has damaged the movement that Syrians
originally envisaged.
With the entry of Russia into Syria, by invitation, in late
2015, Russian media took a great interest in news from Syria. Syrian activists
and writers had largely been unable to access the Russian international media
and have their voices heard, but suddenly these new activists, foreign voices
for Syria, were increasingly given a platform. The “war” continued between some
of these activists and their supporters and those in the MSM who they accused
of biased coverage on Syria, with each accusing the other of being tools of Empire/governments
and vehicles of propaganda. Perhaps had
the values and strategies of the earlier Syrian custodians of the movement been
upheld and their voices amplified as legitimate testifiers of the Syrian story,
such strong accusations of propaganda, unprofessionalism and in some cases
“fake news” may not have occurred, casting a negative shadow on the movement. This
was the dilemma of accepting any voice for Syria versus maintaining the
integrity of the Syrian voice, its values and strategies. The writer, a year
ago, after stumbling across a NATO research document, pondered on these
questions in light of that research. [11]
How, in the future, do the voices of those whose countries are
under attack ensure they get heard out in the international arena? How do they
tell their story, as it is, and without any meddling? These are the witnesses
to the crimes of the “Empire”. The “Empire” has every reason to fear them and
find ways to mute them or silence them. How do movements in the future that aim
to defend their country or cause ensure they keep control of their movement,
their agendas and strategies? How do these movements navigate the very
deceptive, complex ways that can see their causes derailed, hijacked and
destroyed? [12] How do they discern unhealthy agenda ridden “help” from
unconditional, empowering help so that they can find ways to get their message
across to potential listening ears in the MSM and to other people of influence?
*The writer is married to a well-known Lebanese-Syrian
analyst and has been active in challenging the mainstream narratives about Syria
since the beginning of the war. Both write under pseudonyms.
[1] Ogarite Dandache, a Lebanese based journalist for Al
Mayadeen, presented the whole story of what happened to the people of those
villages in Lattakia in her documentary some time later. The link to her
documentary with explanations in English can be found here. Our work on this
was presented erroneously elsewhere as the work of others https://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/10/ogarite-dandaches-august-2013.html
[2]At that stage the Western dominant media took its news of
Syria from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and yet not a single
news item in the mainstream was promptly published at or around the time of
this massacre. SOHR reported on August 6, 2013 “Latakia province: Reports that
rebel fighters took hold of the villages of Obin and A'ramo in the Jabal
al-Akrad area of Reef Latakia in the midst of clashes between rebel and regular
forces in the area”. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/402812663160411
[3] Over two months later, in The Guardian,
finally a report, although vague and sketchy, emerged of this terrible
atrocity.
[4] Human Rights Watch which had played a key role in
misrepresenting facts as if to assist regime change in Libya and Syria,
surprisingly produced this report. https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/10/syria-executions-hostage-taking-rebels
[5] In the months and years following this massacre, the odd
article appeared that referred to the incident. For example, in April 2014 it
was reported that a terrorist freed from Guantanamo had participated in the
crime, https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/04/former_guantanamo_de_2.php
[8] https://tonyseed.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/understand-the-bigger-picture-of-syria-history-with-an-agenda/
For the Russia Prime Minister, Dimitry Medvedev to say that the world is entering a cold war, he is declaring the status quo..and confirming what’s already confirmed. But to say it from Munich, this is the same place from which President Vladimir Putin began to stand up against Washington in his famous speech nearly eight years ago. And, for Medvedev to mention the Russian Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to stop an American invasion, is only a reminder of the new red lines for any land invasion perpetrated by the enemies of the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad in Syria’s north, and specifically to any Saudi-Turkish gamble with a NATO cover. The cold war is realistically under way, what’s new in it this time is that it is the Syrian scorched ground that decides its destiny..and it seems that various contacts made in the last few hours have focussed on putting the situation under control and prioritising on fighting terrorism.
The current problem of the United States is not with its adversaries, it is with its allies. Saudi Arabia and Israel have been feeling marginalised ever since the nuclear deal. They both see the West marketing a new Iran. Turkey, on the other hand, sees that America is bolstering its alliance with the Kurds and now has become prepared to accept that Bashar Al Assad remains in power..and his recapture of northern Syria. It is an aberration for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the President of a NATO member State, to say to America, the leader of NATO, that their policies have turned the region into a pool of blood.
Similar words were echoed by the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubair in saying: “we are pleased to have good relationships with Iran, but they have to take serious steps and stop intervening in our affairs”, and as usual repeating his mantra that Assad will fall politically or militarily in the end. The pertinent point here is that the further north the Syrian Army moves, Saudi Arabia needs to repeat this mantra more often for domestic and regional reasons as well.
The statement that Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Mouallem, made about the returning home of Saudis in coffins, is probably backed by joint Russian-Iranian determination to confront any foreign interference that has not been approved by both the Americans and the Russians under the clear mandate of fighting terrorism only.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia want for either the Syrian Army and its allies to stop moving north, and this has become impossible for them to achieve, or for them to get a role in future plans, as they both consider that the current period is very fortuitous for them to put pressure on American Democrats just before Presidential elections. They will also accept to have forces in the “international coalition”, and this is what Assad has refused in his last interview in which he said that the war in the north aims for, “cutting the link between Turkey and Aleppo”… We can only imagine Erdogan’s face when he reads this statement, and as he is fighting an internal war with Kurds, and feels that things are falling out of his hands.