Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

How, exactly, did Bashar Assad manage to brand himself as a reformer? Perhaps it was the parallels with Rajiv Ghandi. 

Bashar and Rajiv were both accidental heirs. In both cases, they inherited the dynastic power of the family because a sibling was killed in an accident. In both cases, they had been educated abroad. Both came to power with high hopes from western observers.

But here the parallels break down. Rajiv Gandhi inherited control of his family's tame political party, but had to win election as Prime Minister of India. For all its dynastic power, Congress has to compete in open elections with its rivals. Syria's Baath Party does not permit rivals. And Rajiv Gandhi pursued genuine reforms. Bashar Assad has not done so.

I confess, I was one of those fooled by Bashar. As late as 2005, I hoped that his dismissal of the head of Syria's intelligence service could have advented a wider purge of the Stalinists, and a move to genuine reform. I was wrong and, by 2006, was calling for active western intervention to destabilise his regime.

But why did western governments – including both the Bush and Obama administrations – continue to believe that Bashar was on the point of liberal reforms long after he had promised much, but continually delivered very little. Syria's record on human rights continues to be abysmal. It continues to actively promote malign forces in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. There is probably no country which combines such blatant repression at home with active hostility to western interests abroad in such great measure.

And yet, western governments still seem to hope that Bashar will prove to be a reformer. With a decade's worth of evidence in, this is obviosly fales.

That he speaks English, was educated in London, and speaks of democracy and human rights should not be enough. Some measure of action should have been taken years ago. He is no refomer, and it is monstrously naive to think that he might become one.