I support demands for political reform in Syria, and demand that violence against protesters be averted, and then say: President Bashar al-Assad is a thousand times better than an alternative comprising of extremist fundamentalist groups. I also reject in absolute terms, as an Arab citizen, that the situation in Syria deteriorates so that we in Lebanon may have a respite. I expressed the above views on the television talk show ‘Seven Days' on BBC Arabic with colleague Irfan Arab, and reiterate and insist on them today, after having received e-mail messages and phone calls, some of which claiming that I do not defend the Syrian regime, and others claiming that I do not seem to support those rising against it. Like with Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, my stances regarding Syria are on the side of the country and its people, not with or against the regime. Today, there are youths in Syria who are angry and there is a civil opposition. However, they have no leaders to bring them together or known parties, like the Al-Wafd party in Egypt for example. As for the other opposition which I reject utterly, it consists of clandestine fundamentalist groups that want to take Syria back to the dark ages, and they are well-funded (from where, I wonder?) and have dubious foreign ties. Those extremists must be seen in isolation from the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Egypt. While the brotherhood indeed has presence in Syria, it is less prolific in comparison with its sister organization in Egypt. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is an 80 year old political party in Egypt, predating the establishment of the Freedom and Justice Party. They are experienced in politics, and can build alliances, and be flexible as the situation demands it. Further, their leaders are well-known, from Mohammed Badi to the Shura Council and its one hundred and nine members. On the other hand, the extremist groups in Syria are clandestine gangs that lack the transparency of the Muslim Brotherhood, and should they seize power in any Arab country, they would destroy it in a manner that goes beyond what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. The flip side of my view involves the fact that I heard certain Lebanese individuals saying that the deterioration in Syria spells good for Lebanon, and the end of Syria's ‘tutelage' there. This is a big mistake. On the one hand, it is unacceptable, patriotically and humanly speaking, that we call for the improvement of one Arab country at the expense of another. And on the other hand, the extremist fundamentalists will try to export their regime to Lebanon, the country of personal freedoms, if not of democracy. This leads me to talk about how the Lebanese are dealing with the situation in Syria, whether in support thereof or otherwise. The March 14 coalition announced that it would not interfere in any way in the Syrian situation, which makes sense, because the March 14 coalition cannot influence events in Syria even if it tries to do so. It is also an expected stance, because March 14's first and foremost ally is the Saudi government, which has a good relationship with President Bashar al-Assad, to the degree of alliance. This is despite the fact that I read that a Lebanese MP belonging to March 14 was accused of arming Syrian dissidents; I find this accusation to be odd, because it would mean that MP Jamal Jarrah is working against the March 14 coalition and his own allies, or in other words, against himself. If Syria indeed has foes, be they real or illusory, in Lebanon, then its supporters do not benefit it much. Former Minister Wiam Wahhab, for instance, spoke about checks signed by Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz, and displayed copies of them on television, and then we heard that they are from Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of the intelligence services. However, the checks were dated 2010. Prince Turki left the intelligence in 2001, days before the infamous terrorist attacks, and became an ambassador. He now heads a think tank, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the Saudi government. Even if the checks were from a ‘third' Prince Turki, it is impossible for them to be aimed against Syria. Meanwhile, Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz, who denied having anything to do with these checks or any knowledge of them, had left political work in the seventies, when he was the Deputy Minister of Defense, and lived in Egypt for more than three decades. In his recent years his health deteriorated, and it is impossible for him to take any stances against Syria. Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz is one of the finest men. He is famous perhaps for being the most generous man in Saudi Arabia. Even when oil was traded at one dollar per barrel, he would pay to educate students and treat patients abroad. He once told me that he never sends a student away, and proved it to me. In this very column, I once wrote that the magazine published by the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding had a deficit of 200 thousand pounds. Prince Turki subsequently called me from Cairo and paid them the amount through the Arab Bank in London, and its chairman at the time, my friend Ghazi Kanaan, who is still around, can attest to this. Prince Turki then donated money to the same council later, when I wrote that the most important pro-Arab lobby in Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy, and others also donated money. In truth, there are Arab banks who continue to manage the council's endowments to this day. Is there any benefit when an ally of Syria attempts to stir problems between it and countries that support it? I will respond tomorrow. [email protected]
