Does the Syrian regime fight imperialism, or is it the legacy of imperialism?

 It seems that the primary victims of this problem are journalists. If the repercussions of the lack of perspective were personal, they could be ignored. But sadly this is not the case because those who are affected by this virus infect many others with their comments and analyses; it should be admitted that this illness has some dangerous repercussions for the entire society.

There is no easy solution to this problem because it has multiple dimensions, involving people’s intellect, the structure of the media, the ability of universities to fulfill their roles, the importance attached to the creative thinking and the meticulousness of intellectuals and leaders. In addition to reports and comments in the media, books, news magazines and informed comments from wise men with strong perspectives may offer some useful insights.

Prof. Şükrü Hanioğlu, one of the most competent names in the field of modern history in Turkey, is one such intellectual. At a time when the people who are fixated on daily events are polarized because of discussions of the Ergenekon case, he takes his readers to the roots of the problem with a historical perspective, evaluating the period of Committee of Union and Progress and its connection with Silivri, where the Ergenekon trials are being held. While the whole country is focused on genocide allegations in the American congress and the French parliament, Hanioğlu emerges with an entirely different perspective.

Perhaps careful readers did not miss it; Prof. Hanioğlu penned an article on the Syrian issue that occupies a central place in the current discussions and addresses many pertinent questions. There is no doubt that the Baath regime in Syria is massacring its own people, but if you carefully review the case, many questions come to mind. Is what is happening in Syria really the people’s pursuit for freedom? Or is it an operation to deal with an insurgency supported by the West? Is the goal to make Syria stronger through democratization or to ignite sectarian wars to make sure that it falls under the control of Western powers?

In Turkey, Syria, the entire Muslim world and maybe some Western countries, these questions are being asked. Thank God Syria does not have oil resources; because of this, these questions are not asked so insistently. Maybe these questions have remained in peoples’ minds during the Arab Spring and have become more visible in the Syrian crisis, so people have not paid much attention to the ongoing situation in the country. The propaganda distributed by Iran and Hezbollah, the devastating impacts of the occupation in Iraq -- which left 1 million dead bodies and instability across the country -- and the chaos in the aftermath of Gaddafi in Libya have played a role in creating this perception. Right now, how else could we explain the strong support for the Baath regime by some Islamist circles and most left-wing movements in Turkey that tout anti-imperialist discourse, including the Republican Peoples’ Party (CHP)?

These questions deserve attention and further discussion, and most members of the Syrian opposition are aware of them. They are asking whether the big powers are delaying intervention and preparing the ground for an internal war to make sure that Syria is weak. Syrians wonder if the West is spending time to agree on a process of change, without destroying the institutions and bases of power in Syria.

If you ignore what the current regime in Syria represents and what it actually is, all these questions make the whole situation even more complicated. At this point, the opinion piece by Şükrü Hanioğlu -- “As another legacy of colonialism becomes history,” published in the Sabah daily on Feb. 19 2012 -- offered a bright perspective for those who were confused. In regards to how the entity called Syria, which was deliberately left to the discretion of the Nussayri-Christian minority, emerged in the aftermath of World War I, during the greatest fight over how to share the Middle East, Hanioğlu said: “Despite its strong anti-imperialist discourse, the current Syrian regime is one of the final remnants of colonialism in the Middle East. The end of this regime, which will not leave power without exhausting all of its resources, will mean the end of one of the legacies of colonialism in the region.”

This implies that an entity created by imperialism is now being promoted and defended in the name of anti-imperialism; it is now more than obvious. Hanioğlu issues a warning on this matter: “The regime, whose only option is to remain in power, will not leave the stage without causing extreme bloodshed in the country. And once this happens, those who fail to see that the Syrian regime is actually the legacy of imperialism, despite its strong anti-imperialist discourse, would undoubtedly regret it.” Is this not applicable to the entire Middle East?