Two Years of Meta-Narratives: How Not to Cover Syria

[An artistic rendering of Bashar al-Assad, one of the many subtle and thought-provoking images that social media has brought to the fore. ] [An artistic rendering of Bashar al-Assad, one of the many subtle and thought-provoking images that social media has brought to the fore. ]

Two Years of Meta-Narratives: How Not to Cover Syria

By : Audrey Ann Lavallée-Bélanger and Ella Wind

Bassam Haddad mentioned in his article entitled “The Triumph and Irrelevance of Meta-Narratives Over Syria: “Rohna Dahiyyah” that people writing about Syria are often detached from the pain and realities of the people on the ground. We believe this argument is rather fallacious and unfair. Some of those producing media on Syria have gone the extra mile to get as close to the heart of the issue as they could, encapsulating the complexity of the struggle and giving a voice to the Syrian people who live in constant fear and uncertainty. The following piece profiles a few of those sensitive contributors to the media on the Syrian revolution.

The Amateur Journalist

If he is not kidnapped on his first day of reporting, after mistaking a mukhabarat informant for a taxi driver, the Amateur goes on to send starry-eyed reports from FSA-held Idlib province. His story most likely includes an adrenaline-soaked adventure of running through bullet fire as he crosses the Turkish border with the help of men wearing black scarves with white squiggly lines on them. The article usually follows with this freelancer’s encounter with a local FSA leader (or activist, since these are considered interchangeable) who coincidentally turns out to be in charge of most of the province. This leader`s long, scruffy beard contributes to his stoic, battle-worn mystique. The Amateur aims to show the human side of the story. The leader chats with him while nursing to health a stray wounded cat while the leader’s wife, who is wearing a traditional abaya that flows in the wind, refills the would-be journalist’s glass of hot, sticky tea. For two weeks, the mujahid gives the amateur the exclusive inside scoop on the revolutionary democratic system that he and his fellow villagers have implemented. A system where everyone - except of course women, young people, and Alawites - has a voice in deciding the appropriate sentence for those sinful souls who stole bread from the bakery. Yes, the future looks bright for the amateur journalist who chose war-torn Syria for his first beat (we are not counting his summer internship at the North Dakota Times).

The Seasoned Journalist

Probably the most cynical advocate for a Free Syria, the Seasoned Journalist can fart and people will tweet and share it. On a bad day, he can write an article in the comfort of his Beirut mansion with a glass of whisky in one hand and the guilt of his British imperial legacy on the other. His analysis features illuminating claims that brown people - other than his insightful taxi driver, Ahmed - simply lacked the analytical skills to see. Ahh the power of investigative journalism! On a good day, the Seasoned Journo will miraculously find himself where no other member of the press has ever been. Reporting from a government prison, where he interviews incarcerated foreign fighters, he shares his wisdom on the Syrian Revolution: it was entirely hijacked by a foreign hand and the days of peaceful resistance are over. Sometimes he does not even bother to make the trip, throwing in his two cents from across the world instead. This veteran reporter does not have to know what is going on inside Syria to cover it on occasion – it is a sexy topic for the moment, and he does not want to miss out. Besides, a story in which he plays hero might just get the necessary mobilization for his personally prescribed path to Syrian democracy. Showing off his Arabic by a generous sprinkling of the words habibi and shabiha in his reporting, as well as his fetishizing and in depth knowledge of political Islam (he once visited a mosque in Pakistan and he follows Mona Eltahawy on Twitter), he is in an ideal position to make rational and enlightened comments on the future of Syria. After providing a more comprehensive overview of the situation of the ground using an embellished version of the amateur’s account, the seasoned journalist concludes his article grimly and definitively: the “Lion of Damascus” and his regime are bad but so is the opposition; Syria is bound to be a repeat of Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Balkans.

The Syrian-American FSA Revolutionary

The Syrian-American FSA Revolutionary`s maternal great-grandmother was born in Damascus and immigrated to the US in her childhood. Since the beginning of the uprising, the revolutionary reminisces on Twitter about those two summers spent at his teta`s house in the Shaam, where he would chase his cousins under the olive trees as the call to prayer emanated from the Umayyad mosque. This Revolutionary makes you look twice -- you may think he is reporting to you live from Aleppo, with his tweets every three minutes describing the situation on the ground with exacting detail and certainty, but after a few weeks, you find out he is actually broadcasting from the messy and chaotic battleground of his college dorm room in Chicago. His preferred news sources include "my second cousin Abu Mohammed in Homs," the Syrian Revolution Facebook page, blurry and unverified YouTube videos, and "#Syria" on Twitter. His "confirmed" reportage of events is retweeted religiously by his 5,272 followers, and even if his assertions are later contradicted, he rarely follows up: he is too busy hoisting his revolution flag at fundraisers for Syria with unverified recipients. The Revolutionary mocks the piss-poor media coverage of Syria, as he believes deeply in the importance of disseminating leaked naked pictures of Asmaa al-Assad, ridiculously good looking Syrian rebels nuzzling kittens, Bashar wearing different wigs, and other essential topics.

The Fumigating Anti-Imperialist

Quoting those early revolution polls that showed that Syrians were favorable to the Syrian government, the Fumigating Anti-Imperialist is hopeful that Bashar will manage to protect his people against terrorism, sectarianism, and the inter-galactic Western-Zionist-GCC conspiracy. After all, the Syrian government is the champion of Arab resistance and its policies have been historically consistent with the anti-normalization of Israel. It seems surreal (and so suspicious!), that out of the blue, Syrians would start rising against the valiant leadership of Bashar al-Assad. The anti-imperialist thus mocks the self-proclaimed experts engaged in ex-post facto rationalization with neoliberal undertones. Unemployment, growing inequality, and corruption are all consequences of the uprising, not preceding it. Such misunderstandings are the result of the propaganda war launched against the stalwart resistance. The Anti-Imperialist pays attention to the hidden meanings and semantics behind Bashar’s conciliatory speeches, which are constantly distorted and cherry picked by the malicious foreign media. Take for instance the coverage of Homs: the army merely had to go in to cleanse Baba Amro from its terrorists, but it was falsely portrayed as some sort of bloody besieging. Despite some unfortunate collateral damage, Bashar is still quite popular with the “silent majority,” including the Damascene urbanites, the wealthy, and those who-shall-not-be-named living in Mezze 86. The anti-imperialist tut tuts at those few poor, foolish Syrians who have joined the opposition, disappointingly seduced by the allure of sectarian rhetoric and funding from al-Qaeda. They ruined decades of carefully designed nation-state building under the Baath party that for so long had provided freedom, stability, and progress for the Syrian people and their Arab neighbors.

The Beltway Analyst

The Beltway Analyst on Syria need not be fluent in Arabic; it suffices to be intimately familiar with US foreign policy and speak the language of international expertise. Whether Syrian or not, his Western education is what grants him the proper credentials to speak with more insight about the events on the ground than those inside the country. His authority is so all-encompassing that both Washington insiders and the shabiha take great notes from his prophetic blog. He is a moral compass and is quoted declaring the revolution`s consummate “turning,” “tipping,” and "breaking" point every month or so. However, the Beltway Analyst is not as conclusive as the seasoned journalist. He is too aware of international strategies to be moved by the plight of problematic lefties and a few casualties. He is not emotional and irrational like the rest: when he changes his mind about the conflict, it involves an objective, informed, and calculated evaluation of the situation. When he is not out cashing in on people’s suffering and "centuries-old religious struggles," the Beltway Analyst attends those modest dinners held between Paris, Istanbul, and Marrakesh to carve out -- I mean, sort out divisions in Syria. To hell with pesky insiders, what Syria needs is detached political leadership and cold, technocratic expertise. Women, Kurds, and political organizers inside Syria who risked their lives, rest assured--once the regime is overthrown, we will figure out a space to discuss your demands.

The Activist

"Activist” has become quite the buzzword since March 2011, as media outlets who were barred entry into Syria found it more appealing and succinct than “anonymous-Syrian-whose-Skype-name-we-got-from-some-guy-in-London.” The activist will speak with you live from a besieged city and to enhance the spectacle, add a few burning tires to the decor to cover up the impasse in the shelling. Beyond his qualities as a media entrepreneur - he has six twitter accounts, four nicknames and fourteen Facebook groups- the activist is the most lucid of all the types enumerated above. If he has not already left to fight along the FSA because he is disillusioned with protests, six-point plans, and multilateral negotiations, he is with them at least in thought. Tweeting from his home in exile in Europe or the US, he fantasizes about the marvelous work of cold-headed American freedom fighters and expresses his guilt over not staying back with those who could not afford getting smuggled outside the country and that are stuck in Zaatari refugee camp. While they bemoan the SNC, in practice they have a similar, pragmatic rhetoric: let’s get rid of Assad first, by whatever means, and talk about other problems later (critiquing abuses from the opposition will only be counter-productive).

Although the aforementioned characters of the Syrian revolution are engaged in a heated debate and often disagree with one another, there is no doubt that their ideas are meant to move forward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. With such cheerleading for the Syrian cause, one can only conclude that it is Syrians who have not done enough to help themselves.

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?