The following are excerpts from an interview with Jihad Makdissi, a former Foreign Ministry spokesman in Syria who fled in 2012 as the government of President Bashar al-Assad cracked down on antigovernment protesters. Mr. Makdissi, however, has not supported the rebels. He casts himself as a voice for the Syrians who remain on the sidelines, skeptical of the armed uprising but still wanting change.
Some of the questions and answers have been condensed and edited, and the order of the questions has in some cases been changed for clarity. Mr. Makdissi was interviewed in Dubai this month by Hala Droubi.
Q. What are the prospects for the Geneva 2 talks?
Mr. Makdissi. The opposition is adopting the “step aside” approach and focusing on the president; the loyalists are adopting the “let’s fight terrorism” approach. Meanwhile, Geneva is calling for the formation of a transitional body and a process of restructuring the country. So there’s a missing elephant in the room! That is why it’s in each side’s interest to make Geneva fail. Nobody likes Geneva. It’s like an orphan child that nobody wants, because they know that when they do attend Geneva they will lose something in the eyes of their crowds. People in Syria want to achieve change and not only regime change. People have a larger scope than the politicians.
Q. So is Geneva bound to fail?
A. No, it will happen, and it’s going to be a benchmark in the Syrian crisis. It will kick-start a long process that every Syrian, not every politician, wants. Syrians need a process in place that might give them a cease-fire as a first gain. And then you see what’s the defect in this process and work on it and improve it. Today there is an absence of process. So far, it’s fighting, fighting and fighting. So there is a need to give room for diplomacy after three years of failed strategies by everyone.
Q. What makes it more likely now that a political framework will succeed, when many efforts have failed?
A. Nobody has an illusion that it will be fruitful or will put an end immediately for this bloody conflict. [But] everybody is tired, everybody realizes that he is not able to win over and wipe out the other party. Nobody is winning. There’s a need on both sides to catch their breath. And also the Western countries are under huge pressure from humanitarian organizations to do something to face this unprecedented human misery.
Q. So even though the government claims to be winning its “war against terrorism,” it tacitly needs this process?
A. Absolutely. Engaging in any diplomatic initiative would mean buying more time and betting on the change of mood in the Western sphere to get a better political deal.
Q: What is the worst-case outcome of Geneva?
A. We are already in the worst-case scenario. What I would like to see achieved in Geneva is two things: one, mutual acknowledgment between opposition and loyalists; two, a truce, or a cease-fire, that can be used as a tool for confidence building.
Any understanding in any area, be it humanitarian aid, fighting jihadists, releasing or exchanging detainees and so forth, will only be a confidence-building measure that will not hold for long if they don’t agree on the essence of a political solution.
Q. If the government agrees to a truce, how will such a decision be carried out? Is a presidential decision enough or is it far more complicated?
A. It’s absolutely easier than in the case of the opposition, because you have structure in place and you have an army with a chain of command. The problem would be in some people who are fighting but not part of the army, so you can’t have 100 percent success. But at least on the regime side, you can have 90 percent success for sure.
Q. Can Saudi Arabia play a role in making compromise? Isn’t it inclined to back the opposition’s refusal to compromise?
A. Once you attend Geneva, you can’t be a troublemaker. Because you witnessed the wedding! If there will be a wedding in Geneva, there will be a Saudi witness so they can’t go wrong after. The West doesn’t want them to abandon the opposition. I think they want them to bring the opposition back to their senses.
Q. Will Iran’s new rapprochement with the West bring the sides closer on Syria?
A. I don’t think that Syria was even discussed during the Iran-U.S. talks. I would assume that the U.S. might be more interested in discussing Afghanistan with Iran. When it comes to regional security and megapolitics, unfortunately Syria is less important. But in principle, if Iran is O.K., the Syrian political regime will be O.K. When Iran is doing well with the West, Syria will eventually do well with the West in the sense of getting a better political deal with the West. The alliance between Iran and the regime is unshakable. All that said, this alliance will still not be able to bring Syria to before March 2011.
Q. Should Iran be at the table in Geneva?
A: Anyone who isn’t participating is a troublemaker. This is a known rule. I don’t read intentions. I am from the school that says put people to the test, judge their actions and not their intentions. They are saying: We are pro-Geneva, we are pro-reconciliation. So let’s test see if they can be a positive element in this equation. What Iranians care about is the continuity of the regime and not the persona of the president. Geneva clearly calls for regime change.
Q. What is the sticking point for change in Syria?
A. How do you convince loyalists that this change will still secure their survival and nobody will seek a vendetta afterwards? They see the president, and they are right, as the guarantor for their survival. There is this impression that if he leaves he will open the Pandora’s box for more chaos. The future social contract in Syria should give this matter a huge deal of importance, because of the mosaic demography in Syria. The sectarian clashes will decline once Syrians reach a political settlement.
People today are angry and furious because of their losses and the blood. Let’s not judge them at this historic moment. Once you stop the blood with a better social contract, things will begin to calm down. We have never faked our coexistence, this is us.
Q. Do you see yourself playing a role in a future transitional body in Syria?
A. I am genuinely not seeking a role. I am just devastated to see my country falling apart . If this was about having a role, I would have just stayed in Syria in my previous job. I served my country as a civil servant for 15 years. If we will be working to serve Syria as a state, I would be back to being a civil servant anywhere. When you see the colossal death toll you feel ashamed to think about your personal glory. Syria deserves better.
Q. Being Christian yourself, would you see your participation as a reassuring message to minorities in Syria?
A. If anybody wants to seek assurances for minorities, he should seek it through texts and not through individuals. Which means having a Constitution that guarantees people’s rights and more importantly, a mechanism to force the respect of the text by the good governance.
I don’t personally work on a sectarian mode. I am definitely a proud Christian. I absolutely do care and worry about the Christians. It is my community. But I think our Arab umbrella should be maintained because relation with God shouldn’t be the essential factor. We don’t want to live in a society where everybody is labeled.
It will, of course, help in the sense of proper representation, but I’m not promoting myself as a priest. If there is anything I could do to my community, it will be my duty and I would do it, but what I’m saying is that I never felt I’m a second-class citizen. We don’t need to re-create coexistence. We already have it. What we need is to rewrite our social contract with good governance.
Q. But aren’t Christians in Syria facing a threat?
A: Absolutely. The current sectarian fight is not in the favor of Christians in Syria. Chaos led in some places to targeting them and their places of worship. But don’t forget we are at the end of the day Syrian Christians and not Christians only. So when Syria is O.K., Syrian Christians will be O.K., and this should be our focus.
Q. Christians are widely seen as staying close to the regime, believing it is the source of their security. Do you agree?
A. Nobody managed to read well the real position of Syrian Christians, and everybody started accusing them of siding with one side against the other. Syrian Christians believed in the change and that this change is inevitable in Syria, but they wanted evolution instead of armed revolution. Today after all this blood and the real threat of jihadists, the majority of Syrian Christians chose to be among the silent majority of Syrians, and that is so different from siding with any side. We can’t blame them, because the future is really still uncertain. I see Christians in Syria as the best to play the role of the bridge between other Syrian communities.
Q. Do you see yourself returning to Syria in 2014?
A. I really hope to go back today. I don’t have any legal issues, because after I left they accepted my official resignation, but today who cares about law when there is no order? Frankly I would have never left Damascus if I knew that my resignation would trigger no reaction. At the end of the day I have two kids and a family, and there was no room for taking any chance.
Q. What makes it more likely now that a political framework will succeed, when many efforts have failed?
A. Nobody has an illusion that it will be fruitful or will put an end immediately for this bloody conflict. [But] everybody is tired, everybody realizes that he is not able to win over and wipe out the other party. Nobody is winning. There’s a need on both sides to catch their breath. And also the Western countries are under huge pressure from humanitarian organizations to do something to face this unprecedented human misery.
Q. So even though the government claims to be winning its “war against terrorism,” it tacitly needs this process?
A. Absolutely. Engaging in any diplomatic initiative would mean buying more time and betting on the change of mood in the Western sphere to get a better political deal.
Q: What is the worst-case outcome of Geneva?
A. We are already in the worst-case scenario. What I would like to see achieved in Geneva is two things: one, mutual acknowledgment between opposition and loyalists; two, a truce, or a cease-fire, that can be used as a tool for confidence building.
Any understanding in any area, be it humanitarian aid, fighting jihadists, releasing or exchanging detainees and so forth, will only be a confidence-building measure that will not hold for long if they don’t agree on the essence of a political solution.
Q. If the government agrees to a truce, how will such a decision be carried out? Is a presidential decision enough or is it far more complicated?
A. It’s absolutely easier than in the case of the opposition, because you have structure in place and you have an army with a chain of command. The problem would be in some people who are fighting but not part of the army, so you can’t have 100 percent success. But at least on the regime side, you can have 90 percent success for sure.
Q. Can Saudi Arabia play a role in making compromise? Isn’t it inclined to back the opposition’s refusal to compromise?
A. Once you attend Geneva, you can’t be a troublemaker. Because you witnessed the wedding! If there will be a wedding in Geneva, there will be a Saudi witness so they can’t go wrong after. The West doesn’t want them to abandon the opposition. I think they want them to bring the opposition back to their senses.
Q. Will Iran’s new rapprochement with the West bring the sides closer on Syria?
A. I don’t think that Syria was even discussed during the Iran-U.S. talks. I would assume that the U.S. might be more interested in discussing Afghanistan with Iran. When it comes to regional security and megapolitics, unfortunately Syria is less important. But in principle, if Iran is O.K., the Syrian political regime will be O.K. When Iran is doing well with the West, Syria will eventually do well with the West in the sense of getting a better political deal with the West. The alliance between Iran and the regime is unshakable. All that said, this alliance will still not be able to bring Syria to before March 2011.
Q. Should Iran be at the table in Geneva?
A: Anyone who isn’t participating is a troublemaker. This is a known rule. I don’t read intentions. I am from the school that says put people to the test, judge their actions and not their intentions. They are saying: We are pro-Geneva, we are pro-reconciliation. So let’s test see if they can be a positive element in this equation. What Iranians care about is the continuity of the regime and not the persona of the president. Geneva clearly calls for regime change.
Q. What is the sticking point for change in Syria?
A. How do you convince loyalists that this change will still secure their survival and nobody will seek a vendetta afterwards? They see the president, and they are right, as the guarantor for their survival. There is this impression that if he leaves he will open the Pandora’s box for more chaos. The future social contract in Syria should give this matter a huge deal of importance, because of the mosaic demography in Syria. The sectarian clashes will decline once Syrians reach a political settlement.
People today are angry and furious because of their losses and the blood. Let’s not judge them at this historic moment. Once you stop the blood with a better social contract, things will begin to calm down. We have never faked our coexistence, this is us.
Q. Do you see yourself playing a role in a future transitional body in Syria?
A. I am genuinely not seeking a role. I am just devastated to see my country falling apart . If this was about having a role, I would have just stayed in Syria in my previous job. I served my country as a civil servant for 15 years. If we will be working to serve Syria as a state, I would be back to being a civil servant anywhere. When you see the colossal death toll you feel ashamed to think about your personal glory. Syria deserves better.
Q. Being Christian yourself, would you see your participation as a reassuring message to minorities in Syria?
A. If anybody wants to seek assurances for minorities, he should seek it through texts and not through individuals. Which means having a Constitution that guarantees people’s rights and more importantly, a mechanism to force the respect of the text by the good governance.
I don’t personally work on a sectarian mode. I am definitely a proud Christian. I absolutely do care and worry about the Christians. It is my community. But I think our Arab umbrella should be maintained because relation with God shouldn’t be the essential factor. We don’t want to live in a society where everybody is labeled.
It will, of course, help in the sense of proper representation, but I’m not promoting myself as a priest. If there is anything I could do to my community, it will be my duty and I would do it, but what I’m saying is that I never felt I’m a second-class citizen. We don’t need to re-create coexistence. We already have it. What we need is to rewrite our social contract with good governance.
Q. But aren’t Christians in Syria facing a threat?
A: Absolutely. The current sectarian fight is not in the favor of Christians in Syria. Chaos led in some places to targeting them and their places of worship. But don’t forget we are at the end of the day Syrian Christians and not Christians only. So when Syria is O.K., Syrian Christians will be O.K., and this should be our focus.
Q. Christians are widely seen as staying close to the regime, believing it is the source of their security. Do you agree?
A. Nobody managed to read well the real position of Syrian Christians, and everybody started accusing them of siding with one side against the other. Syrian Christians believed in the change and that this change is inevitable in Syria, but they wanted evolution instead of armed revolution. Today after all this blood and the real threat of jihadists, the majority of Syrian Christians chose to be among the silent majority of Syrians, and that is so different from siding with any side. We can’t blame them, because the future is really still uncertain. I see Christians in Syria as the best to play the role of the bridge between other Syrian communities.
Q. Do you see yourself returning to Syria in 2014?
A. I really hope to go back today. I don’t have any legal issues, because after I left they accepted my official resignation, but today who cares about law when there is no order? Frankly I would have never left Damascus if I knew that my resignation would trigger no reaction. At the end of the day I have two kids and a family, and there was no room for taking any chance.
Source: The New York Times
