Skip to main content

Assad 'as 'ad it

The speech from Bashar Al-Assad was long awaited. How would he address the crisis in his country?

In the end he has bottled it. By failing to recognize that the protesters have legitimate grievances and by making a speech insisting that the unrest in Syria is all the fault of shadowy foreign conspiracies, he may well have condemned himself to death.

If he will not enter into a dialogue with the majority in his country, then sooner or later he will be overthrown. A small part of me suspects that the clique that surrounds the Baathist regime in Damascus has got its own agenda that has little to do with the personal survival of Bashar al-Assad, after all the speech that they must have tacitly approved is astonishingly reckless.

The days when Bashar was a mild mannered optician at the Western Eye Hospital in London whose interest in politics seemed, at best, tangential are long gone. Indeed the death toll in Syria is already creeping up to the tens of thousands killed in in the time of his father Hafiz after a rebellion broke out in Hama in 1982. This time though, the rebellion is way beyond a single city and comes after the fall of three other regimes in the Arab world and the likely fall of a fourth and even fifth.

A spectacular mistake- I wonder if the Syrian President wishes that he and his British born wife, Asma, had stayed in Acton?

Comments

Matthew Harris said…
Yes, I doubt that the Syrian regime cares tuppence for President Assad, and, as you say, they probably partly chose him when his father died because they saw him as being someone they could manipulate.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...