The protests in Syria are leading to economic disaster, threatening life in the country for years to come The Syrian leftist oppositionist Wagdi Mustafa has been member of the Communist Union and spent 13 years in Syrian prisons. A few years ago he settled in Europe as a political refugee. He was on the consulting committee of the main coalition of the Syrian democratic opposition which held the Antalya conference from 31 May to 3 June. Who promoted the Antalya conference and what is its outcome? There have been already several different conferences of the Syrian opposition or parts of it. For example some of the Muslim currents organised their own events. The idea was to stop following separate agendas and reach the broadest possible unity for democracy in Syria. The main promoters were the left and liberal forces around the Damascus Declaration (DD) but the attempt of unification worked out. Out of 31 members of the consulting committee four members each are from the DD, Muslim Brotherhood, the Kurds (who are predominantly leftist) and the tribes. The remaining 15 are independent personalities also including all confessions. Reports said that Abdel-Halim Khaddam and Rifaat Al-Assad were not re-elected. On what grounds? They were excluded because of their direct relationship to the US. As you can read in the final statement of the conference we strongly refuse any foreign military intervention in Syria as these people tend to call for. We do not want to repeat the very bad Libyan experience. But isn't there Turkish involvement, financing, as some opposition forces want to follow the Turkish model? No, there was neither political nor financial involvement of Turkey. Turkey aspires a stronger regional role, and some of the Islamic forces and also Sunnis call for Turkish support. In some demonstrations there were already slogans for Turkish military intervention which we refuse. What about Saudi and Salafi influence in the rebellion which will eventually favour American interests, or MB control? There are two currents within the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamic movement at large. The more liberal and democratic one is enthusiastically part of the Antalya conference. They respect the diversity of Syria and call for democracy and not for an Islamic state. They oppose Western intervention. And there are the pro-Saudi groups which met in Brussels as Muslims only. They compete with the Antalya coalition. They might be connected to the US via the Saudis and the Gulf states. Actually there is nobody who controls the movement and even less from outside. Yes, 30 years ago the MB controlled Aleppo, Homs, Hama. But now there is a new generation. Their main aim is democracy even if many of them call themselves Islamic or Islamist. By the way the Saudis are very cautious. They did not go against Al-Assad although that might change if the international tide turns against his regime. The US and the old colonial powers France and Britain are very unpopular in Syria and you will have a hard time finding direct supporters for them. The sectarian efforts of Al-Hariri were channelled via his personal friend Khaddam. But Khaddam is out of the game. Their only card is via Turkey which, however, follows its own agenda. How do you explain the democratic turn of the Muslim Brotherhood? They have a negative record in the past for sectarianism and atrocities committed on that ground. But they accept the Syrian reality that nearly half of the population belong to national or confessional minorities. Al-Assad claims the only alternative would be a confessional rule by the MB. But this is absolutely not true. They expect a maximum of 15 per cent of the electorate. Neither the tribes nor the capitalists follow the Islamists. In some demonstrations in Sunni areas people even distanced themselves from the MB. This is the reason why the democratic wing of the MB was formed and accepts a secular state as expressed in the Antalya declaration. The Western media is voluntarily reporting claims that there is Iranian and Hizbullah involvement in the repression. I doubt it. I heard that bearded soldiers were involved, which is forbidden in the Syrian army. This gives ground for speculations. Politically, Tehran is fully on the side of Al-Assad as the loss of the regime would be a severe setback for Iran. What is the prospect of the Syrian revolution? As the movement cannot and will not give up, Al-Assad's refusal to meet the democratic demands means that his regime is dragging the country deeper and deeper into civil war. We want to avoid this by all means but nobody wants to victimise himself. The people draw their lessons from the permanent massacres and it is also legitimate if they defend themselves. There are reports that there is a split in the army. Isn't it possible to go for an insurrection with support by democratic forces within the army? For the time being there are only individual defections. You should also take into account that the regime has built the army according to sectarian criteria to maintain loyalty. While the majority of the conscript soldiers are Sunni according to their population share, the officers' corps is predominately Alawite. You can see that the siege on the rebellious towns is laid by special units where even most of the soldiers are Alawite. Al-Assad does not dare to use normal soldiers as he fears mutinies. The organised forces of the opposition are very weak on the ground. The MB as well as the left have been driven out by decades of severe persecution. This is still a spontaneous revolt but with time the regime will be weakened. There are signs that some elements of the business elite are thinking of switching side, not only in the Sunni but also in the Alawite milieu. It is possible that at a certain point the regime will implode. But this could provoke a foreign military intervention... The Western powers will not dare to intervene as the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people from all political trends refuse this. Also Russia will oppose it. But what is possible is limited Turkish intervention in the border zones under the guise of humanitarian help. We oppose this but many will welcome it. Many Sunnis prefer an Ottoman project to the old colonial powers. And the danger of an Israeli aggression? Israel has no reason to intervene. They want stability and therefore are against the democratic movement. Al-Assad is better for them. What is your next step? Our main task outside is to increase the international pressure on the regime. We want to bring Al-Assad before The Hague's tribunal. Won't this pave the way for a military aggression from outside? This is a dilemma. We need foreign pressure which weakens the regime and lead to the necessary defections. What we can contribute from outside is to isolate the regime and thus render the political costs for the repression higher. But I repeat: we refuse any foreign military intervention. Interview by Wilhelm Langthaler
