Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi: Behind a politician’s lust for power/Brooklyn Middleton: Stop the Syria massacres first, then talk later

Behind a politician’s lust for power
Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi/Al Arabiya/November 01/15

There are key moments that determine the path of a politician and the future of a state. Once a politician sees one of these moments, he is guaranteed not only a place in history but possibly success as well. That moment occurs when the politician feels and acts, realizing it is time to leave before he becomes delusional.

The lure of power is attractive, particularly with a retinue telling him he is the savior and only possible leader. This is how illusion mixes reality, and the result is a great alienation between reality and the fairytale in the leader’s imagination. That seems a simplification of the political reality, but in fact it is the reason for countries being destroyed and for the killing and displacement of populations. In history and also in the present day, the political leader’s loss of touch with reality signals the beginning of the end. Saddam Hussein once lived this illusion and held on to power despite dozens of opportunities to end his people’s suffering, protect the state’s institutions and give up power.

He chose to be a tyrant, leading the country to internal and external wars that destroyed Iraq, led the state’s institutions to collapse and ended in his and his sons’ deaths. This politician who misses such opportunities does not realize that he has lost both legitimacy and life. Qaddafi lived the dream to such an extent that he himself appeared surprised at the unrest in his country as indicated by his infamous question, “Who are you?”

He believed that everyone loved him and that it was impossible to find even a single opponent. Democratic institutions in developed countries such as the United States are meant to protect the country from the tyranny of politicians and distribute power among the state’s legislative and executive branches. Most importantly, they take vital decisions for protecting democracy, the most significant being that the president can serve for only two terms. We remember that former U.S. President Bill Clinton was popular. If the constitution had allowed him a third term, he would have swept the elections. Americans wore shirts with his picture on them even though they were voting for a new president. It was funny and also showed people’s admiration for the president’s performance.

Respecting the constitution prevents emotions overriding political decisions. Rationality is thus the decision-maker rather than massive street marches asking the leader to remain in power and sacrifice himself for the people. With great irony, we remember the Syrian Parliament when it changed the constitution to allow the election of President Bashar Assad for a second time. The Parliament, supposedly the legislative and regulatory authority, was turned into a puppet show in which members competed in applauding Assad. One even jumped hysterically off his chair as he shouted slogans in support of the president. It was nothing more than an embarrassing scene that seriously weakened the great people of Syria.

A real desire to protect the state
Thus, we reap what we sow. This transformation which many people thought would make Syria a developed and democratic country has produced one of the bloodiest leaders in modern history. Syrians are paying the price for their leader’s grip on power. The result has been millions of refugees, 300,000 dead, and the destruction of the pillars of the state as they have fallen into the hands of terrorists and militias. Does any authority deserve all these sacrifices? Despite such justifications, how can a person accept this much damage just to stay in power? The leader missed the right moment and it passed him by. It is now too late for him to act.

The Libyan experience embodies a political leader’s mixing fantasy and reality. Qaddafi lived the dream to such an extent that he himself appeared surprised at the unrest in his country as indicated by his infamous question, “Who are you?” He believed that everyone loved him and that it was impossible to find even a single opponent. Any lust for such power is doomed and must be restrained in order to protect the politicians and their hold on the state.

The ousted Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was equally addicted to power although he was saved by a Gulf-sponsored agreement that gave him immunity. In the end, the lust for power triumphed, leading him to ally himself with his former enemies in order to return to power. The region’s experiences stress the need for powerful institutions that consolidate human rights and respect for a constitution in order to protect the state from the whims of politicians and their well-documented madnesses. The devastation that has taken place in Arab states could have been avoided if politicians had possessed a real desire to protect the state rather than a simple desire to benefit themselves and their cronies. Despite their bloody mistakes, they have given a lesson to people today and those of coming generations, showing clearly that errors can and do happen. And falling into the same old patterns will be as disastrous today and tomorrow as it has been in the past.

Stop the Syria massacres first, then talk later
Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/November 01/15

The latest round of international talks on how to end the Syrian conflict took place on the same day as the latest massacre in the country. Regime airstrikes and shelling killed at least 70 people and injured another 550 at a market in Douma, the violence-wracked city located just northeast of Damascus. Doctors without Borders indicated in a written statement that as first responders rushed toward the mangled victims, shelling targeted the chaotic site, worsening the bloodshed.

The barbaric, though hardly unprecedented, attack on the market took place as no less than 17 countries sat down at the table – no Syrian parties were present – to discuss the need for a comprehensive ceasefire. With more talks scheduled for the coming weeks it is relevant to ask if – despite all the talking – any party is actually speaking for suffering Syrians.

It is difficult to comprehend the total exclusion of the Syrian opposition and any Kurdish representatives. One of which will usher in a new era post-conflict and the other which will play a pivotal role in security matters on the ground. In addition to the failure to bring two of the most important parties to the table, it is all but certain the talks will descend into failure. Both Iran and Russia refuse to back any deal that risks Assad’s future grip on the country; meanwhile, the international community’s excuse for not doing more to stop the bloodshed, the “there are no good options in Syria” could very well soon be replaced with “the involved parties failed to agree on Assad’s future.” At the same time, the death toll will continue to skyrocket while both Russia and the Assad regime carry out war crimes with impunity. In addition to the continued, indiscriminate targeting of civilians, Doctors without Borders officials confirmed that at least 12 hospitals were bombed since late September, killing at least 35 people.

No party has successfully delivered any security solutions to end the conflict for over four years
That such attacks are being continuously carried out while over a dozen countries discuss the conflict is absurd; the death toll from the same day the talks took place – alone – should trigger immediate initiatives to alleviate the dire humanitarian crisis and suffering. While not abandoning the position that Assad’s criminal regime must go, the U.S. should use upcoming talks as an opportunity to lead on presenting solutions that address the humanitarian crisis. No party has successfully delivered any security solutions to end the conflict for over four years. Such a reality at this point in underscores the need to prioritize the humanitarian situation over all other issues on the table in the immediate term.

The U.S. and EU should pressure Iran and Russia to agree to measures that immediately mitigate the suffering on the ground. A U.N.-backed meeting, with Doctors without Borders advisors present, should be held for the sole purpose of determining which besieged areas are in greatest need. All parties should then focus on implementing a ceasefire in the designated areas and agree to facilitate the transfer of critical aid. Any party opposed to such measures only further exposes their lack of serious interest in deescalating the conflict and their own culpability in the continued bloodshed.

The statement released by the international community after their meeting in Vienna offers a broad nine-point outline of what the group referred to as matters of “mutual understanding.” The parties very well may be in agreement on the nine issues but not a single one of them can even begun to be addressed without halting the wanton bloodshed first.