Interview with Jihad As-Saad Mohamad, a Syrian Communist leader

“All weapons must come off the streets”: Jihad As-Saad Mohamad, chief editor of the Syrian communist weekly Kassioun

Karin Leukefeld کارین لویکفلد

Translated by John Catalinotto
Edited by Susanne Schuster

Interview with Jihad As-Saad Mohamad. On communists in the Syrian protest movement, the conditions for a dialogue with the government and the enemies of the opposition at home and abroad

Since 2001 Jihad As-Saad Mohamad has been chief editor of the weekly newspaper Kassioun in Damascus. The newspaper considers itself the organ of the Union of Communists in Syria, an umbrella party that aims to unite the various communist organizations.

Do you consider yourself and your party to be part of the Syrian opposition?
Yes, we see ourselves as part of the opposition. However, we think it is important to firstly conduct an analysis from which we will develop our position. If you are against something, you must first understand the economic, social and political contexts and their backgrounds.

Is the Union of Communists a legal party in Syria?
There is no law in Syria that regulates the formation or activities of parties. Even the Ba’ath Party is illegal.

The Ba’ath Party derives its power from Article Eight of the Constitution. And there is the National Progressive Front of parties, which includes a communist party.

We have a problem here not just with Article Eight of the Constitution, we have a problem with all the laws. They are old, outdated, and they never held for all parts of the Syrian society. The government has indicated to us that we could become official and thus part of the system. But we have our own idea. There is a huge gap between us and the political regime. We work outside the established system. We are neither close to or far removed from the regime, we are very much outside of it and committed to only one rule — that of honesty and sincerity. Yes, the Ba’ath Party has the power, but it lacks sincerity. That is now becoming clear, and due to the uprisings all the problems with the outdated legislation are exposed. It’s the same with the economic and social conditions. We are against this whole system and seek a comprehensive solution, not isolated changes.

Now everything is called into question. How does your Party evaluate recent events?
This movement is carried by the Arab on the street. Nobody controls it, nobody leads it. It has its own political, economic and social roots. Since it is a popular movement, we support it. It is completely independent of persons or structures that have to do with the current political system. It is completely independent of internal or external influences. It is a movement that expresses in the streets what the people really want. That’s how we see it. We are very close to it, both politically as well as with our newspaper.

Is your party an active part of this movement?
Our members take part in some of the protests, but not everywhere. In some places we have the impression that it’s right to participate, other places are very sensitive, and so we prefer to hold back. Where we already have a base and contacts, we participate in the protests. We have lost comrades, they are martyrs. Some were imprisoned, others are wanted. There is enormous state pressure on our party, but we will not change our attitude.

What is your criterion for taking part or not taking part in protests?
Where we had contacts long before the protests began and where our slogans are known and accepted, we participate. But there are places where religion plays a big role, and there we hold back in order to ensure that the religious influence does not take the upper hand and exploit the movement.

What are the most important reasons for the protests?
The most important reason is the economic situation. Neoliberal policies have plunged the society into poverty. Young people are unemployed, many have lost their social status, crime has increased, even prostitution. The government has taken money from the World Bank and committed itself to specific measures that worsen the situation of the population. And for the first time it has asked for help from the World Food Program. Syria had always had enough supply of seeds for four or five years. Nothing is left. The state has to buy seeds and wheat from abroad.

Then there are the political reasons: The Syrians have lived 50 years under a state of emergency, there were no political freedoms, and there was no freedom in private life. The security police and the secret service interfere with everything. They are rude and high-handed toward the people and show them no respect. Even the request for an ID card or passport must be approved by the secret service. This movement wants dignity and food – food and dignity instead of praying and obeying.
The regime is obviously trying to meet the demands. A committee is drafting a new electoral law. The draft law on political parties was published for discussion, and a new media law is being formulated. All this is on the agenda for the national dialogue on July 10-11.

How could you work under the rules that existed up to now?
So far there has been a very simple, almost primitive law for newspapers. The 507th issue of Kassioun is being published now, and we are tolerated. The government offered us a legal publishing permit, but we refused it. We could publish legally, but we would be subject to control and censorship. After the many years we have been in existence, we do not need approval anymore, we publish regardless. Our newspaper has been accepted and approved by the people and by its readers.

There are numerous groups outside of Syria that have a voice in foreign media. Do these groups have any influence, and for whom do they speak?
Syria belongs to all Syrians, regardless of whether they live in the country or abroad. Everyone has the right to speak their mind about the future of Syria. It’s their right to join the discussion, to work together and participate in the shaping of Syria. It can be anywhere, anyone and in any way; it is illegitimate to make any distinctions. I have no right to exclude any person, no matter what opinion they have. You can use everything: TV, newspapers, internet, Facebook, whatever. Everything is important in order to support us. I don’t have the right to say some are OK because they are Communists or left, and the others are not OK, because they are Muslims or an Islamic party.

But that sounds very liberal.
Syria belongs to nobody. Nobody has the right to control the country or to speak in its name. I can only reiterate that I respect everyone, left, nationally or religiously oriented. Only two things I reject: One is the use of weapons, regardless of whether the regime uses them or someone on the side of the demonstrators. And secondly, I reject any claim to sole representation. One must accept one another no matter what opinion you represent. As part of society each person has rights.

Who fired the first shots? The army, security forces, or both?
The first bullets came from the security forces. This has provoked the further use of weapons. Each action causes a reaction. Some people have shot at the security forces. I doubt that there are armed gangs, presumably they have been invented or they belong to the security forces, like the Secret Service.

As far as the Army is concerned I would say this: The Syrian army has a good reputation, there is no tension between the army and the people. In the history of the country it has never acted against its own people. The Syrians believe that the armed forces are there to defend the country against enemies, especially against Israel. But today there are forces within the regime who want to embroil the army in a war against its own people.

Who are they?
Let me put it this way: There are forces within and outside the regime which have been stealing from, lying to and betraying the people for 50 years, and which have been building their own empires. Economic linkages play a role. These forces do not want to give up their privileges; they do not want any changes or reforms. To secure their position they are pushing the army into a war against the people. They are willing to do anything to hold onto their special privileges.

Are they successful?
Up to now they have been successful, because the honest forces are too weak both inside and outside the regime. They have not yet managed to come together and build a counterforce.

There are many different reports about what is happening in Jisr Al-Shugur. Opposition forces claim that the army attacked the population and executed 120 soldiers for disobeying orders. The Syrian army and witnesses in the town in the northwest of the country reported that armed groups had tried to take over the city in mid May. After they destroyed public buildings and killed 120 soldiers and security forces, the army intervened. Thousands fled to surrounding villages, to Aleppo, Idlib and Turkey. What do you know about this?

Syria has a difficult history, particularly in this region by Jisr Al-Shugur. Since 1982 there has been an extreme rejection of the regime, indeed outright hostility. The government has neglected the region economically and socially. From this city our party has good and reliable information that forces from abroad have put fuel on the conflict situation there. At first there were peaceful demonstrations, but then armed people appeared who have appropriated the protests for their own purposes. They were supported by Turkey, Israel and the US. I would not say this, if we did not have verifiable information. Our comrades provide us with daily reports from there. The clashes between these forces and the regime ended in a kind of showdown. The only ones who had to suffer were the normal population.

Western media and diplomats spoke of a scorched earth policy that the regime and the army carried out in Jisr Al-Shugur. Did the soldiers set fire to the farmers’ fields?
We have heard that in some areas the army has made mistakes and has displayed the wrong conduct. But the analysis is the same as explained before: There are forces that want to drive a wedge between the army and people. They are putting the soldiers into a situation that is not part of their mission. Presumably there are members of the security forces who committed atrocities while wearing army uniforms.

Does the arson at a bakery in the village Bdama, which was reported by the Western media, fit into this pattern? Allegedly they supplied refugees on their way to Turkey with bread.
I’ve heard the same thing, but only from the media. We heard no report of this from a comrade. So I do not know if it’s true because I have no reliable source. I am not saying that it could not have happened, because the same people who set fire to the fields can burn down a bakery. I think this affair was mainly about drawing international media attention to the border area. The reason for this is that foreigners can easily intervene there. The whole thing is even more complicated: The security forces I already mentioned want to prevent all reform and change in Syria – if necessary with violence; they even share the same interests of certain people abroad, wanting to destabilize Syria.

The government offered the opposition a national dialogue. Previously the opposition wanted this – and the government refused. Now the government wants it and the opposition refuses. What is the way forward?
Your description is correct and it is really a complicated situation. The opposition was and is still strongly convinced that a national dialogue is the only way to solve the problems in Syria. Initially the regime paid no attention to this demand and instead deployed the security forces against the people. So the opposition has increased its demands. Today it says that there can be no solution with this regime, that it must be overthrown. Now the government invites them for talks, but many people have been killed, injured, humiliated and arrested — that makes dialogue difficult. Some 15,000 young men are in prison, and the president himself has said that 65,000 more are wanted.

Who will lead the discussions and to what end?
A dialogue must be started between the opposition and the regime in Syria. The government must talk to the people on the street, on an equal footing. The requirement is that all the weapons, to the last one, must come off the streets. The army, security forces and any armed opposition — all must put away their weapons. Then there can be a dialogue. And its only goal must be how the regime can be overcome peacefully. It is the only way Syria can be saved from a religiously and ethnically motivated war.

No one will give up their weapons voluntarily.
But this is the simplest solution and also the only one. The people on the streets want to overthrow the regime. Therefore there is either a dialogue or the regime will continue its military campaign. That means civil war. That has been my personal opinion since the President’s speech on June 20. My party has believed until now that the regime could easily meet some of the demands. For example it is known that certain people in Syria enriched themselves from public funds – the figure mentioned is US$ 40 billion. People expected the president to comment on this and request the repayment of this money to the state. But he said nothing. It was expected also that he would order a withdrawal of security forces from the street and punish those responsible for what they did to the people. It was expected that the people would be granted the right to demonstrate as long as they remain peaceful. But he stayed silent on these issues. It also looks as though the regime will not make concessions and wants no real dialogue with the people. How is one supposed to find a solution?

Can one compare the situation in Syria with Egypt, before the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak?
No, there is a big difference between the two countries. In Egypt there was already more freedom and democracy than in Syria. There was an organized opposition with their own newspapers, the unions were functioning, and the students had their own organizations. They organized many strikes and have political experience. None of that is the case in Syria. Egypt has two other major problems. One is the question of how the government is dealing with Israel. There was a conflict between the old government and the people. The other problem is the economy which is in a much worse state than here. In Syria the regime’s attitude toward Israel corresponds to the view of the people. But in matters of economic justice and civil liberties there is a conflict, perhaps akin to the one in Egypt. The movement here arose suddenly after 50 years of silence; that is a big difference. It might well take us months until we have found a political solution. That is, if the international community allows Syria to take that long. Turkey seems to have taken on the task to exert pressure on behalf of the West, although both countries have become close political and economic partners in recent years.

I think Turkey is looking for a way to score points in the Islamic world. There are three reasons: Firstly, they want to export their brand of modern, liberal Islam, as practiced by the party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to the entire Islamic world. Secondly, Turkey fears that other forces will intervene in Syria, if they do not. We must not forget that Ankara has a problem with its Kurdish population. A changing situation for Syrian Kurds will not be allowed to have effects on Turkish Kurds. Thirdly, Turkey maintains close relations with the US, the EU and NATO; due to this it could deem itself to be the one to direct Syria on behalf of the international community.

Some states have an interest in the overthrow of the Syrian regime, because Syria’s position on Israel does not suit the West. Their governments openly support the Syrian opposition. Are you pleased with this?
RussiaToday recently asked me the same question. I told them that all the speeches by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by English or French politicians have only one goal – to suffocate the freedom movement. The Syrian regime does not care much about the opinion of Germany, but the opinions of France or England cause headaches. We would be delighted if the peoples of the world support us, but we do not need and we certainly do not want foreign interference.

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA—see our right column for that.)
THANK YOU.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED.
Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

____________________________________________________________________