Russians and Americans obviously understand the concept of “moderate opposition” differently
What is a “moderate” opposition? By perception of Armenia, today, let’s say, the Dashnak party is moderate while for example the ANC is non-moderate and radical. Or, in the 90’s, the Democratic Liberal Party of Armenia was moderate (incidentally, what happened to this Party?), while ARF is radical. In other words, in our reality, the one is moderate who is ready to negotiate with the government on some issues for solving this or that specific problem, while the radical is the one who wants to hear nothing and only demands immediate change of power. These perceptions of moderation and radicalism, I think, fit in the western political principles.
It is different in Syria. Here, both moderate and radical opposition is armed. The “moderates” kill and slaughter but they do not shoot it and post on the Internet while the radicals are openly proud of their murders. By American classification, all militants fighting against the Assad regime, in addition to the “Islamic state”, are moderate. By Russian classification, all the militants fighting against Assad are terrorists. Certainly, the oppositions in any country of the world like to cite to the preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, which reads that the human rights should be protected so that the man, as a last resort, is not compelled to rebellion against tyranny. It is not written here that the rebellion should be armed. Although, on the other hand, it is clear that Assad’s regime is authoritarian and is ready to suppress any rebellion by the force of arms.
And thus, as a “moderate opposition”, the West, first of all, considers the Syrian National Council, which was established in 2011 and is recognized in particular by the US, Britain, and France. Another force, the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, is presented in the League of Arab countries. The “Islamic Front” rebel army enjoys the support of some countries of the Persian Gulf (first of all, of course, the Saudi Arabia). Among the “moderate opposition”, there are various Islamist groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra having close connections with al-Qaeda. Jabhat al-Nusra captured Kessab last spring and destroyed the Holy Trinity Armenian Evangelical Church. So, we, Armenians, can question their “moderation”.
Read also
Last week, the Russian air force launched a strike on Syria’s “moderate opposition” positions, arguing that it is attacking the “Islamic state”. Clearly, they actually know very well whom they attack. The “moderates”, in the face of Tajamu al-Izza and Sukur al-Jabal armed groups, appealed to Washington with a request to provide mobile missile-volley system to them to be protected from Russian bombings. If this request is met, it will turn out that the American volley systems will open a fire on Russian aircrafts, which globally, to put it mildly, will not contribute to the international security.
Russians have interfered into the conflict because they want to keep the Assad regime, as well as have manifested as a “global player” not because they are highly concerned about the “Islamic state” intimidations. The Americans take part in the conflict because they want to overthrow the president of Syria and not because their heart pains from the violations of human rights by the Assad regime. The Russians are fighting for the oil price rises, Americans are fighting for the oil price falls. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are also involved in the conflict driven from their own interests. It is neither good nor bad, it cannot be otherwise. Let us leave the “ideological” and “idealistic” explanations for the politicians and their advocators.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN,
Aravot daily
