Assad ready for talks, "fully commits" to end violence

[Os Cangaceiros]

Syria’s President Assad has agreed to talks with the opposition and will follow the Arab League’s roadmap, increasing the number of observers in the country, even in the most hostile areas in Syria.

This follows talks with the Russian delegation headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has announced that President Assad has agreed to send a government delegation to Moscow to meet with representatives of the opposition.

Assad stands firm in his resolve to stop violence in his country, wherever it should come from, said Lavrov. The parties reaffirmed their readiness to use the Arab League’s initiative to find “a swift way out of the crisis.”

Damascus is to shortly announce a national referendum to draw up a new constitution. According to President Assad, the text of the new constitution has already been drafted and will soon be published in newspapers and on the web. It is set to deprive the ruling political party of its monopoly. Officials expect the referendum to be set for March. After the referendum, the country will go to parliamentary polls, so far planned for May.

et cetera

http://rt.com/news/syria-lavrov-talks-damascus-657/

[Ostrinski]

Unexpected.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The proof shall be in the pudding.

[R_P_A_S]

yes. we will wait and see.. this is good.

[Veovis]

This will accomplish nothing unless he agrees to step down. The people want him out and they won't stop until he's gone.

[manic expression]

A positive development overall, I think. It bodes well that both sides are willing to try to come to an agreement. We'll see where this goes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The proof shall be in the pudding.

Well yes, as they've (Syria, Assad) made rather a pudding of this whole situation, I suppose it will be.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Hahaha ... the Syrian government is going to have a referendum to "draft a new constitution" but then they reveal that they already wrote one up behind closed doors ... how democratic. No, they don't need democratically elected delegates to work on that kind of thing, just let the ruling party do it for you. It reminds me of the "constitutional reforms" pushed by the Egyptian military a little while after toppling Mubarak, which were all halfhearted and largely favored the established elites.

At this point peace might be too late, there may be too many armed groups which want Assad dead and are more likely to see this as proof that his government is losing its grip on power, and that if they agree to this it will merely allow him to recuperate. Anybody willing to negotiate might get branded a "reformist" by the more hardline elements (which is an allegation that Socialist revolutionaries surely can understand). This could have been done easily early on, but less so now. Perhaps Assad should have thought of that before trying to slaughter people for 9 months, but there you go.

You can be certain that any such "deal" will preserve the current Syrian economic elite.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Assad continues to kill civilians while he talks peace. Seems like talk of peace is merely a smokescreen for more war against the people.

[R_P_A_S]

Assad continues to kill civilians while he talks peace. Seems like talk of peace is merely a smokescreen for more war against the people.


umm yes.. when are these talks supposed to go down? because more people are dying..

[danyboy27]

he is stalling, buying more time to allow the syrian army to put down the opposition.

Its not really surprising.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Assad has offered "talks" with the opposition several times before (while still killing them in the streets). This current "offer" is nothing at all new, the only thing new is the somewhat larger scale of the "proposal". Its PR, nothing more.

The situation, as usual, is very complicated. Rhetoric aside the US/UK/NATO do not want to directly intervene in Syria. The situation is too messy. The "West" is hiding behind Russia/China's recent veto of the UN resolution."We'd like to stop the butchery, but the treacherous Chinese and Russians won't let us."

The Syrian National Council seems to be pro-NATO. I do not know about the National Coordination Body. What is needed is a working class movement to topple the klepto-thugocracy of Assad.

Does anyone know the role of the Syrian Communist Party? As I understand they are not part of the regime (to their credit). Most likely, like other CPs, they accept crumbs off the table in return for some imagined "influence".

A good article

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5570

Obviously no support for intervention, we should expose the current media hype, while absolutely no support for the thugocracy.

[X5N]

Huh, I was expecting the same kind of misguided support Gaddafy Duck received (and still receives).

[Yehuda Stern]

The Syrian National Council is indeed aligned with NATO, and is dominated by pro-Saudi fanatics. It is also very soft on the question of Israel. That is not to say that it is worse than the regime, but it's certainly no better. I think revolutionaries in Syria would have to work with the opposition, all the while challenging and exposing the reactionary current leadership.

The situation is very similar to that in Poland in the 1980s - you have an oppressive regime (which in both cases claimed to be socialist and / or anti-imperialist, and so had the support of the worse elements of the left) and an opposition which started as a grassroots movement, but then was abducted by pro-Western forces. In both cases, neither side was strong enough to win, and in both cases, I think western imperialism didn't / doesn't want the regime toppled, because they're afraid of the alternative that might arise. So the most likely scenario, in my opinion, is a repeat of what happened in Poland - some sort of national unity government in which elements of the opposition are allowed to share power with the existing regime.

[Yehuda Stern]

Does anyone know the role of the Syrian Communist Party? As I understand they are not part of the regime (to their credit). Most likely, like other CPs, they accept crumbs off the table in return for some imagined "influence".

Actually, I think both the Bakdash and Faisal splits are part of the regime's National Progressive Front.

[IrishWorker]

Positive move, lets hope they can come to an agreement and put an end to this mess.

Assad should set a date for his own resignation.

[brigadista]

just read this at Socialist action

http://www.socialistaction.net/International/Middle-East/Middle-East-Politics/After-Libya-Syria-counterrevolution-and-Counterfire.html

The veto, by Russia and China, of a US-backed UN Security Council resolution aimed at giving cover to stepped up imperialist intervention in Syria has made this more difficult. But this setback will not stop the offensive of the US and the other imperialists, backed by Israel, to overthrow Syria’s government.

This is now the most immediate imperialist aim in the Middle East, as it will cut the supply lines to Hezbollah in Lebanon, further isolate Iran, and by these means strengthen Israel.

This imperialist offensive, conducted with active collaboration of the most reactionary Arab states in the region, headed by Saudi Arabia, as outlined in a previous article on this website, follows on from their victory in Libya. Defeating this imperialist offensive is the crucial task of progressive forces on an international scale.

It is therefore shocking that in Britain the left wing organisation Counterfire has been supporting the side of this counter-revolutionary offensive, and promoting forces in Syria which are directly tied to imperialism. This repeats the position it held during the NATO-led, assault on Libya where it also supported the side of the imperialists in the conflict – an analysis of these positions is here.

This article looks at the struggle in Syria and the positions of Counterfire on it. However, the same arguments would apply to other currents which also supported the imperialist offensive in Libya and the present one in Syria.

UN Resolution

The draft UN resolution that was vetoed on 4 February, would have endorsed imperialism’s ‘regime change’ strategy – that is the drive to overthrow Assad and impose an imperialist backed government on Syria. The vetoed motion said that the Security Council ‘fully supports’ the Arab League request that Assad transfer power to a deputy and the establishment of a government of national unity within two months – a position formulated and promoted by the Saudi dictatorship, the US’s key ally among the Arab states.

Russia had successfully argued for the removal of clauses in the draft that threatened military action against Syria. However, before supporting this new motion Russia sought further amendments which would impose the requirement for simultaneous withdrawal from the towns on both the Syrian government forces – as set out in the resolution – and on the armed opposition groups operating inside Syria – not mentioned in the resolution. The US, wanting no such restrictions on the armed opposition to the Syrian government, declared these proposed amendments unacceptable, ended further negotiations on the resolution and pushed it to a vote.

Of course, the veto in the UN will not deter the imperialists. The US and its allies had been stepping up their campaign in support of the opposition and against Assad despite the veto of an earlier UN resolution in October 2011. Their response to this new setback at the UN is simply to intensify the offensive.

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton has called for the establishment of ‘friends of democratic Syria’ group to coordinate imperialist aid to the Syrian opposition. France has already signed up to this group, which is likely to be similar to the ‘Contact Group on Libya’ that coordinated NATO operations with the Libyan opposition. The US imperialists rapidly followed this with the withdrawal of their ambassador from Syria.

With US encouragement, the Arab League is ignoring the veto and claiming the 13-2 vote means there is ‘clear international support for the resolutions of the Arab League’. Qatar is calling for Arab states to assemble a military intervention force.

Counterrevolution

The overall context for the situation in Syria is imperialism’s response to the wave of struggle that swept across the Middle East last year – in particular the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. Initially throw on the defensive, imperialism responded by launching a determined counterrevolutionary offensive to hold back and divert further advance of the popular revolt. Across the region, strongly supported by Israel and the Saudi regime, it mobilised its clients and sought new allies to defeat the progressive wave of struggle.

The six month war that toppled the Libyan government delivered a significant blow to the Arab revolution. The next objective of this counterrevolutionary offensive is to overthrow the Syrian government. Alongside this, the US continues to consider military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are under threat.

Syria, the FSA and SNC

Despite the difficulties of dealing with conflicting information coming from Syria, it is clear the regime retains significant support. There are regular large mobilisations across Syria in support of the Assad government, some are even reported in the Western media such as these examples from the New York Times, BBC, Euronews and the Guardian.

Also the Qatar Foundation, even though it is based in one of the countries playing a key role in the attack on the Syrian government, found in a poll it commissioned last month that 55 per cent of Syrians do not want their President to resign.

The Syrian regime, including its military, currently remains essentially united. All reports indicate that the defections from the army are of individuals and small groups, not whole units. As a 5 February review entitled ‘The how-to guide to toppling tyrants’ in the FT commented: ‘The principal reason most in the region expect Mr Assad to cling on for a while is that soldiers have defected as individuals and not en masse.’

Confronted with this situation imperialism is coordinating various proxy military forces and orchestrating guerrilla attacks. Like the Contras sent to attack Nicaragua in the 1980s, these groups are financed, armed and trained by imperialism and its clients. The groups include Libyan fighters fresh from assisting NATO’s campaign in their country.

The various groups, including the so called ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) are widely reported to being hosted and shielded by Turkey and Jordon, trained by France and Britain, provided with intelligence by the US and financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

These armed groups attack Syrian government forces, but also target civilians and economic infrastructure. Sectarian violence is encouraged against the minority Shia community.

The FSA is calling for a direct imperialist military intervention in Syria along the lines of the assault made last year on Libya. In short the FSA is directly allied with imperialism.

The Syrian National Council (SNC) is likewise allied to the imperialists – it calls for foreign military intervention and coordinates closely with the FSA. It is being pulled together in a similar fashion to Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) as the ‘regime-in-waiting’. Imperialism is building up international support for the SNC. The new Libyan regime – which most identifies with it for obvious reasons – already recognises the SNC as ‘the sole legitimate government of Syria’. Saudi Arabia, a strong backer of the SNC, has indicated it will confer such recognition at some later date. Key imperialist powers are also indicating their public backing for the SNC. The US, France and Spain treat the SNC as ‘a legitimate representative of the people’. Currently the SNC is recognised in some capacity by 16 states.

Sectarianism, Saudi Arabia and Qatar

A long standing tool used by imperialism to divide and rule in the Middle East is to promote conflict between different branches of the Muslim faith. Currently a wave of anti-Shia sectarianism is being whipped across the region. In Iraq it has helped divide those opposed to the US occupation. It was promoted against last year’s uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and it is used to promote hostility to the governments of Iran and Syria.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are central to this campaign. The dictatorial feudal states of the Gulf are potentially threatened by the mass struggle for democracy. Fearing for their survival, the Saudi Arabian and Qatari monarchies have taken decisive action against the wave of struggle dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’. Saudi Arabia led Gulf States’ military forces into Bahrain in March 2011 to put down the popular movement. Both mobilised the Arab League behind imperialism’s proposed attack on Libya. Qatar reoriented its influential media outlet, Al Jazeera, to assist this campaign.

Both are centrally assisting the offensive against Syria. Saudi Arabia initially pushed for an Arab League monitoring mission into Syria, but when the Mission’s report effectively backed many of the Syrian government’s claims, Saudi Arabia pulled out of the Mission and pushed the rest of the Arab League to suspend its work.

The Arab League Monitoring Mission

The Arab League Observer Mission to Syria did not confirm the imperialist propaganda that has been aired so much this past year. It reported (English translation here) there are armed opposition groups including the Free Syrian Army, using armour piecing weaponry, which have been killing civilians as well as Syrian troops. Their confirmed targets have included a civilian bus, a train carrying diesel, bridges and pipelines. It also noted ‘many parties falsely reported’ the conflict with some media reports of explosions or violence by the regime being entirely false and others exaggerated.

Libya

It is only necessary to look at what is now happening in Libya to grasp what a successful offensive against Syria would mean. Many tens of thousands of Libyans were killed and the country ravaged causing immense human misery. Victorious NATO installed its puppet NTC regime, about which there is nothing remotely progressive or ‘revolutionary’. It awards lucrative oil contracts to the countries whose military campaign put it in government. And violence continues in Libya. Even some NGOs in the West are now raising objections to the executions, torture and abuse, carried out under the new regime and which have been particularly directed against black people.

Counterfire

Counterfire, since taking the same side of the military conflict in Libya as the imperialists, has down played the imperialist threat to Syria and been promoting an analysis of the current conflict sympathetic to the principal forces allied to imperialism.

As Lindsey German explained in the July 2011 documentary Syria At The Crossroads: 'there will be pro-Western forces involved in the demonstrations...it is also true that if the West gets a chance to exploit these divisions they will, but both of these questions are relatively minor in comparison with do the people of this country, as with all the other countries in the Arab world, have the right to demonstrate against their government....and that has to be an absolutely unequivocal right'.

This is wishful thinking. The questions of imperialist involvement in the opposition movement are not ‘relatively minor’ – the campaign is being organised, led, and backed by imperialism. The fate of the entire population rests on such questions, as was clear in Libya.

Counterfire has also been running a series of articles by Khalil Habash, the main line of which is to support the forces fighting the Syrian government. Habash encourages support for opponents of the regime irrespective of whether or not they are clearly tied to imperialism, including supporting the FSA. A recent article on 11 January lauds the FSA and argues that it ‘helps the Syrian revolution and the popular movement’. Supporting an armed group allied to imperialism is to politically aid counterrevolution.

To justify support for the FSA, Habash entirely misrepresents reality by omitting to indicate its ties to imperialism through its funding, arming and training and its support for imperialist military intervention.

Habash also sowed illusions in the Syrian National Council (SNC) after it was established in August 2011 to a fanfare of imperialist support. The analysis on 13 September absurdly described the SNC’s Chairman Burhan Ghalioun as a ‘prominent leftist figure’.

Ghalioun is not remotely left wing, as can be seen from the explicitly counterrevolutionary programme he outlined to the Wall St Journal on 2 December. There he spelt out that he stands for a Syria no longer allied to Iran, but to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia with support for Hezbollah and Hamas cut off. Clearly he is a very public ally of imperialism.

Since then presenting Ghalioun as leftwing has been untenable, so Habash tried to cover his tracks and acknowledged the SNC’s pro-imperialist alignment in an article on 14 December but does not conclude that this places it firmly on the side of the counterrevolution. For Habash the problem with the SNC is not its fundamental alignment but that it ‘relies too heavily on the recognition by imperialist powers’ and that (as is argued in an article of 11 January) it does not ‘reinforce the popular movement inside the country’. Only imperialism can be assisted by its favoured alternative government, the SNC, ‘reinforcing’ its intervention in Syria.

Habash verbally claims that foreign intervention in Syria, as in Libya, would throw things backwards but promotes the FSA, which is a direct conduit for that intervention.

Counterfire, by playing down imperialism’s threat to Syria and uncritically presenting Habash’s views as serious analysis, is pursuing the same path it took over Libya.

In earlier conflicts those associated with Counterfire, although then within the SWP, played a central role in mobilising wide coalitions of forces against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In both these conflicts Counterfire opposed the side backed by the imperialists.

This changed when Counterfire supported the side of imperialist counterrevolution in Libya last year, and is reinforced by it going down that same path on Syria t.

These positions supporting the counter-revolutionary, pro-imperialist side in the conflicts in Libya and Syria are weakening the activity of the anti-war movement in response to both interventions. While it would not be possible for the anti-war movement to have mobilised mass forces against the intervention in Libya – or currently in Syria – there has been no significant impact of the anti-war movement on wider sections of public opinion than the most convinced anti-imperialists. Lack of clarity and inconsistency of argument against the imperialists’ open and covert intervention, downplaying the reality of actual covert imperialist intervention in Syria, and presenting the imperialist-linked oppositions as in someway progressive has added to confusion in the movement rather than to the forces opposed to the imperialists’ ploys.

On 28 January the Stop the War Coalition organised a protest which was officially against intervention in Iran and Syria. Whilst the threats to Iran were addressed by the protest’s organisers, imperialism’s growing offensive against Syria was scarcely mentioned. Despite the protest’s official title the Stop the War Coalition’s placards only referred to Iran, with no reference to Syria.

A principal Stop the War Coalition speaker at the event, its National Officer John Rees did not even mention Syria – despite the fact that significant military action against Syria backed by imperialism is already underway rather than still threatened as against Iran.

At a time when imperialism is increasing its offensive against Syria Counterfire is trying to spin a false ‘narrative’ that the pre-eminent target at risk of imperialist violence is Iran without mentioning the imperialist violence already being waged against Syria. This is because Counterfire is supporting the forces backed by and tied to imperialism in Syria.

Counterfire made a disastrous mistake in supporting the side of counter-revolutionary forces in Libya. Unfortunately they have not learned any lessons from this in relation to Syria.

Following the veto of the UN motion on Syria, the imperialists are stepping up their offensive, arming the Free Syrian Army, supporting the SNC, encouraging the Arab League to consider military intervention, setting up a pro-opposition ‘contact group’ and other steps. It is vital the left takes a completely clear position against this imperialist offensive and those they are supporting in Syria.

[manic expression]

I love it. The pro-opposition posters have been clanging for Assad to be more conciliatory to the pro-imperialist opposition, and when he goes out on a limb like this to find a peaceful solution, they accuse him of being duplicitous (even though the opposition apparently thinks otherwise as it's agreed to the talks). It seems a lot of posters are intent on blindly demonizing the government no matter what the facts might suggest.


Assad has offered "talks" with the opposition several times before (while still killing them in the streets).
Syrian soldiers are dying in the streets, too. Are they supposed to pretend no one's shooting at them so that foreign observers can feel better?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I love it. The pro-opposition posters have been clanging for Assad to be more conciliatory to the pro-imperialist opposition, and when he goes out on a limb like this to find a peaceful solution, they accuse him of being duplicitous (even though the opposition apparently thinks otherwise as it's agreed to the talks). It seems a lot of posters are intent on blindly demonizing the government no matter what the facts might suggest.


Syrian soldiers are dying in the streets, too. Are they supposed to pretend no one's shooting at them so that foreign observers can feel better?

It might help if the brutal Syrian security stopped shooting at protesters.

I do not give a flying f___ about the feelings of foreign observers. The Arab League diplomats are servants of brutal kleptocracies just as much as Assad's security. I do care about the feelings of syrian workers who are being massacred in the streets.

I don't want Assad to be more "conciliatory". I want him overthrown by a worker's revolution. US imperialism does not really want him gone, he's been an ideal buffer for Israel.

If your bulwark against imperialism in the Middle East is a brutal thug regime, well the worker's movement has a big problem.

Marxism isn't statism.

[Princess Luna]

I love it. The pro-opposition posters have been clanging for Assad to be more conciliatory to the pro-imperialist opposition, and when he goes out on a limb like this to find a peaceful solution, they accuse him of being duplicitous (even though the opposition apparently thinks otherwise as it's agreed to the talks). It seems a lot of posters are intent on blindly demonizing the government no matter what the facts might suggest.


Syrian soldiers are dying in the streets, too. Are they supposed to pretend no one's shooting at them so that foreign observers can feel better?
GxcbqlHcmTs
Can you honestly watch this video and then tell me you still fully sympathize with Assad and think he is doing everything he can to protect innocent people??? Fuck the Syrian soldiers, the fact they are being shot at gives them no more moral justification, then it gave the Wehrmacht when Poland was being invaded.

[manic expression]

It might help if the brutal Syrian security stopped shooting at protesters.

I do not give a flying f___ about the feelings of foreign observers. The Arab League diplomats are servants of brutal kleptocracies just as much as Assad's security. I do care about the feelings of syrian workers who are being massacred in the streets.

I don't want Assad to be more "conciliatory". I want him overthrown by a worker's revolution. US imperialism does not really want him gone, he's been an ideal buffer for Israel.

If your bulwark against imperialism in the Middle East is a brutal thug regime, well the worker's movement has a big problem.

Marxism isn't statism.
No, you miss the point. Youare a foreign observer (as are most of us here, I think), and your stated demand is that the Syrian government stop shooting at the opposition even though the opposition is shooting at them. Thus my original statement holds true.

Marxism is materialist, which means recognizing what a government is in spite of the fact that one might be swayed by imperialist rhetoric against it.


Can you honestly watch this video and then tell me you still fully sympathize with Assad and think he is doing everything he can to protect innocent people??? Fuck the Syrian soldiers, the fact they are being shot at gives them no more moral justification, then it gave the Wehrmacht when Poland was being invaded.
I don't have to watch it to tell you that I don't fully sympathize with Assad, since I've never once said that I do. In fact, I don't sympathize with him at all, much less assign such scruples to his policies. I merely refuse to voice support for an opposition that would represent a move to the right and a defeat for the workers.

[consciousrevolt85]

i can't believe some people are actually buying into the imperialist propaganda......you can bet that anything that comes out from Al Jazeera is going to be completely twisted facts and false as they are funded by Quatar and US interests...

[Ocean Seal]

It might help if the brutal Syrian security stopped shooting at protesters.
Its all capitalism.



I do not give a flying f___ about the feelings of foreign observers. The Arab League diplomats are servants of brutal kleptocracies just as much as Assad's security. I do care about the feelings of syrian workers who are being massacred in the streets.

Yes I agree, and the militants against Assad are also servants of a faction of the bourgeoisie.



I don't want Assad to be more "conciliatory". I want him overthrown by a worker's revolution.
But there is no workers revolution.



US imperialism does not really want him gone, he's been an ideal buffer for Israel.
What US imperialism wants tends to be quite fickle




If your bulwark against imperialism in the Middle East is a brutal thug regime, well the worker's movement has a big problem.

It most certainly does. And it has other bigger problems. But the point is all capitalist regimes are brutal thug regimes. Some just make more gains for the workers than others. And with the eating comes the hunger. The time for all of these anti-imperialist dictators will come, just for many it is not today.



Marxism isn't statism.
Well that simply isn't true.

[Ostrinski]

I love it. The pro-opposition posters have been clanging for Assad to be more conciliatory to the pro-imperialist opposition, and when he goes out on a limb like this to find a peaceful solution, they accuse him of being duplicitous (even though the opposition apparently thinks otherwise as it's agreed to the talks). It seems a lot of posters are intent on blindly demonizing the government no matter what the facts might suggest.


Syrian soldiers are dying in the streets, too. Are they supposed to pretend no one's shooting at them so that foreign observers can feel better?Syrian soldiers are being shot at in the same way that American soldiers are being shot. You honestly expect leftists to give two rats' asses about Syrian soldiers being killed? Put them all up against the wall as far as I'm concerned.

[manic expression]

Syrian soldiers are being shot at in the same way that American soldiers are being shot. You honestly expect leftists to give two rats' asses about Syrian soldiers being killed? Put them all up against the wall as far as I'm concerned.
I would disagree, if only because American soldiers are shooting and being shot all over the world. Syrian soldiers are being shot at in Homs. Opposing the Syrian government is one thing, but comparing it to the most vicious and aggressive military force in the known universe is quite another, and it is unbecoming of any analysis to make such a wild claim.

As for the rest, I expect leftists to give more than two rats' asses about the consequences of opposition gains. If it turns out, as seems to be more and more the case, that the opposition is pro-imperialist, then you should greatly reevaluate your condemnation of Syrian soldiers, for they would then be carrying out an important task in confronting imperialism's allies.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

Hurray for Assad and Arab socialism,down with terrorists and NATO-dogs!
:):)

[Tim Cornelis]

Hurray for Assad and Arab socialism,down with terrorists and NATO-dogs!
:):)

What socialism?

[KrasnayaRossiya]

arab socialism which is a special socialism,maybe it's not even socialism but it's still better than neoliberalizm

[Tim Cornelis]

arab socialism which is a special socialism,maybe it's not even socialism but it's still better than neoliberalizm

There is not such thing as "<insert ethnicity] socialism", there is only 'socialism'. And no Syria is not socialist. It has (limited) private property, commodity production, and is liberalising the economy.

[Susurrus]

arab socialism which is a special socialism,maybe it's not even socialism but it's still better than neoliberalizm

I believe similar terms were used to describe national socialists during the molotov-ribbentrop pact.

[RadicalRed]

I am Syrian and you don't know nothing about "Arab Socialism"

Tunisia's Ben Ali was an "Arab Socialist" yet he privatized everything in the country and caused half of the population to be unemployed and regularly arrested union leaders , Communists and intellectuals.

Same with Mubarak and now Bashar.

[Rafiq]

Arab socialism originally was a "left wing nationalist" movement that was much more Radical and Marxian. However, in most of the countries that it was expressed, splits occured between Right Wing conservatives and Leftist Marxians, as was the case in Syria. The Right Wingers won the power struggle and since then Syria has been embracing Liberalisation of the economy.