Italian Jesuit priest Paolo Dall’Oglio has spent more than 30 years in Syria, where he rehabilitated the abandoned 6th-century Deir Mar Musa monastery situated 80 kilometres north of Damascus. There he created a pluralist, ecumenical community, called ‘al-Khalil’, where he preached tolerance and encouraged inter-faith dialogue.
In June this year he was expelled by the Syrian authorities after a year of increasing tensions between his mission and the regime of Bashar al-Assad. His ultimate offence for the dictatorship had been to offer the friends of Bassel Shahade, an opposition filmmaker killed in fighting in the city of Homs, a memorial prayer service at the ancient desert monastery, attended by both Christians and Muslims.
Dall’Oglio, 57, has a rare insight of the workings and strategies of the Assad regime, and also of those who make up the forces of the opposition movement that has been fighting it in a bloody civil war that began early last year. In this in-depth interview with Caroline Donati, he analyses both, details his hopes and projects for reconciliation in a post-Assad Syria, and denounces what he calls “the outrageous” distance of the international community in face of the escalating slaughter of opponents to the Damascus regime.
-------------------------
Mediapart: You have a thorough knowledge of how the Syrian regime works: how do you explain this escalation of repression we’ve been seeing over the past few weeks, and in your opinion what can we expect to happen?
Paolo Dall’Oglio: Every time the regime gets closer to its end, it reacts with more violence, more violence to convince its supporters that this is the final battle, that they’re going to put down the insurrection once and for all. Are they lying to themselves? What is their strategy? That’s what we can’t quite seem to understand. I think this regime is counting on events [Editor’s note: to occur] in its favour. Imagine an Israeli-Iranian war: that would change the situation on the ground. The dictator of Damascus could exploit that as he has in the past. Would that work? I don’t think so myself, but they do.
What’s more, international irresponsibility leads me to believe that even [Obama’s] red line [warning on] chemical weapons is a false red line: in certain conditions, this regime could use chemical weapons. We are in danger of an apocalypse. Because that’s what they promised us, so we can fear the worst.
Mediapart: So you really think they’re prepared to resort to chemical weapons?
P.D’O.: Naturally! They have no moral qualms. It’s obvious. With the regime in this paranoid state, we’re moving towards a horrible end. So at that point, how is the international community going to react?
Mediapart: You have stated that the international community could have led a policy of non-violence, but that it has been inconsistent. What do you feel are the main inconsistencies in this diplomacy?
P.D’O.: Well, it’s absolutely disgusting. You’ve got powers that have missiles, nuclear ships, aviation, and, faced with a Syrian situation like this one, there’s nothing to be done? My impression is that there is a great deal of bad faith, because Russia has enormous interests along with the West. It’s the same with Iran, with this never-ending nuclear business. Pakistan is nuclear, India is nuclear, America is nuclear, and nuclear energy is present in Turkey. A principle is being laid down where there shouldn’t be any. Why couldn’t Persia, this big state, this big nation, be nuclear like the others? We have got to be clear: ‘Yes, you cannot have nuclear energy because we’re afraid you’d drop the atomic bomb on Jerusalem.’ But then let’s put it clearly: ‘What will you give us as guarantees for being a rightful nuclear power?’
The real problem is a cultural problem. It’s not the bomb, it’s the fact that Iran has set itself up as a hostile alternative to the Western alliance, to Israel, America, Europe, and wants to be the leader of the Muslim revenge on Zionism. We’re in an eschatological mess there, the final war. Bush was already in this scenario when he went to war with Iraq.
Mediapart: And Syria is paying the price for these battles?
P.D’O.: There’s this question about the presence of the state of Israel in the Middle East. We need to talk about it, our reasonable Jewish friends and moderate Zionists need to be able to talk about it. I never place moderation on the side of the less religious. To me, moderation is a religious virtue, it is part and parcel of religious consistency, of religious radicalism, of depth. We need real Muslims, real Jews, real Christians.
Mediapart: You have clearly taken sides in favour of the armed uprising in Syria.
P.D’O.: I have said to the international community if you want to take the non-violent route, I’m all for it. But that isn’t done with 300 observers. It’s done with 50,000 people, and not just observers. We have had experiences with peace-keeping forces all over the world, armies who are there with the population when they demonstrate, and who show that it’s possible to demonstrate non-violently, that free speech is respected and that the democratic transformation is becoming possible.
I had said, in September 2011, although we were already in situations of violent struggle, that the international community could have provided the resources for an armed force to intervene, to enforce a ceasefire and so permit the pacifistic international community to be present. Where is it today? I’d really like to see it.
We brandished grand principles. We ask the poor to be non-violent when faced with the rich who are violent and armed. My God, it’s outrageous! So I say: ‘You’ve got your weapons, we are in distress, we are being wiped out by an army that has no scruples. It is your duty to provide aid and comfort, to come and save us before we get wiped out.’
Mediapart: How do you explain the absence of international solidarity, civil society’s failure to mobilise?
P.D’O.: We’ve had some major shocks in the West. The West has lost the war in Afghanistan, the West has lost the war in Iraq, the West has had a huge shock in Somalia, the West has completely failed in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. We are in a state of paralysis. Moreover, there is an anxiety about Islamism everywhere in the world and that paralyses civil society. As a result, we don’t know what to do and I get accused of being in favour of war merely for saying these people must be defended.
Mediapart: What do you say to those who, from the Left of the political spectrum to the Far Right, come to deny the reality of the Syrian revolt owing to their anti-imperialist stand and their hatred of Israel?
P.D’O.: You’re bringing up something that’s exceedingly important and wider-reaching than the Syrian conflict: the question of negationism. This negationism goes together with the ideological manipulation by the regime. This is a deep method, which consists in replacing the reality of the revolution with a myth. I’m not surprised, but I’m sorry to see that those who deny the Syrian revolution are the same ones who deny the Shoah, in an anti-Semitic approach that is more or less subtle.
On the Shia side as on the Sunni side, we have a systematic denial of some historical facts. This is a serious matter, because then you’ve got some ‘Sister Agnes’s’ [nuns alleged to be spreading regime propaganda], some patriarchs, some bishops of Aleppo, who are in the same denial about the Syrian revolution. They are the same ones who justify the suicide attacks on Israel. I want to get our Muslim friends to consider that, through Sunni-Shia dialogue, we can detect and debunk the ideological manipulation being carried out on both sides.
Mediapart: In putting down the revolt the regime relies on militia, some of whom are recruited from among the Alawi minority, the shabiha, who are implicated in the worst atrocities. What are the mainsprings of this violence, and how far are they going to fight?
P.D’O.: The shabiha are outlaws who have put themselves in the service of members of the regime. They used to be groups of smugglers, they did the dirty work for regime members. They were already militarised, armed, and their culture put them above the law, far from any moral scruples. They were above the security service.
The shabiha were, in a sense, at the core of the regime, but outside its legitimacy and the acceptable face it wanted to show. Their support for Bashar al-Assad is of the order of a personal allegiance.
Mediapart: How does that personal allegiance work?
P.D’O.: As in the Mafia, through a totally personalised allegiance: you are the very person of the one you serve. That’s why they can say ‘our God is Bashar’ and torture a person to the point of making him say ‘Bashar is his God’. It’s Fascist madness. Their personification of the state is also reinforced by their belonging to the tribal community. It’s a very archaic mechanism.
Mediapart: But the minority reflex counts too?
P.D’O.: Yes, but Alawis, and I know some, don’t have that reflex. They think of themselves as citizens. But the regime is using community allegiances to fuel the violence. Some young men are convinced since childhood that it’s their world, their right, and that they have to defend it, and that there is a danger, embodied by those ‘awful’ Sunni Muslims who want to wipe them out. It’s always my violence against the violence, real or not, of the other.
Mediapart: You say the Christians don’t feel this war concerns them. And yet, some of them are already involved in the uprising, even among the ranks of the Free Syrian army.
P.D’O.: We need to break down this Christian/Muslim dichotomy. We can identify some very different groups of Muslim leaders and Christian leaders. The first group are those who wear a priest or bishop’s habit, or that of a sheikh or imam, but they are simply state security men. They have become that or were that even before becoming priests, both scenarios are possible. They have really been using religion as part of the security of the regime.
The second group are those who have worked for the state, thinking they could benefit from it. The state hired them, required them to repeat compulsory sermons in which they were to name the president, because you can’t imagine giving a sermon without mentioning the president’s name. Reports were made every Sunday, and those who objected were summoned and had to explain themselves. In spite of this constant pressure, they thought they’d eventually manage to get their rights back. This is how a support base was created.
Some didn’t hesitate to do far more than they were asked to. To them, the regime could not fall. They are convinced of Syria’s total supremacy, that ‘God is with Syria’, that Assad is going to stay in power and that there is no alternative. In this blind faith they follow Assad, ‘their Lord’. Among these Muslims and these Christians, there were some good people who had ideas, a certain bigheartedness. On the whole, these people are under the yoke of the power of the state.
The third group, good people in my opinion, are those who have resisted whilst keeping silent, Christians as well as Muslims. These sheikhs, these priests and these imams are recognised by their flocks as the natural leaders. They will have their place in the new Syria.
And lastly there is a group of courageous people who, at a certain point, said all that was enough and took to the street.
Mediapart: Who are they? Whom do they represent?
P.D’O.: They are priests, bishops, who have distanced themselves from the regime. Some left Syria, others had already left earlier. And there are those who are active behind the scenes in humanitarian efforts, vis-à-vis families victimised by the violence. Real honest-to-goodness work is being done on the ground, which shows the soundness of their solidarity with the people. There is some very patent and effective Christian and Muslim collaboration in this regard, which is recognised by everyone. These are the families of those who are fighting. Syria in revolution is supported in a more or less direct but effective way by a humanitarian, clandestine and sometimes semi-clandestine network.
Enlargement : Illustration 3
Mediapart: And now the Christians are leaving Syria?
P.D’O.: The Christians have, for the most part, remained on the sidelines and are now beginning to leave. What is surprising is that, even when leaving, they remain loyal to al-Assad. The Iraqis left with a nostalgia for Saddam Hussein, who in their eyes represented the only possible equilibrium. The Christians are leaving, saying: ‘It’s the fault of the West that never understands anything, the West has destroyed us.’ And where are they going? To the West! The same people who criticised democracy their whole life long, saying “Guantanamo, is that democracy?’, ‘Look at Iraq, is that democracy?’, then find refuge in Western democracies.
Mediapart: Couldn’t the religious hierarchy, the Vatican, have done something to bring about some change in their position?
P.D’O.: You have an idea of the Church’s capacities that bears no relation to the reality, which is that of a Church that is tired, deserted by the young, culturally marginalised. But yes, it does have a prestigious diplomatic structure with representation in every country. It could have done a great deal. I have the impression that when the pope declared that 'supplying arms is a mortal sin, we have to work towards peace, through diplomacy', he was also addressing his own.
Mediapart: You are working on a project for a new constitution and reconciliation in post-Assad Syria. What approach are you taking?
P.D’O.: I’m working at a ‘Constitution and Reconciliation’ office in order to gather some constitutional ideas that might allay the mutual fears, those of the Christians, the Alawis, and the Muslims. There are some Sunni Muslims, including veiled women, who support Bashar out of fear of Islam, of the conception they have of Islam. They say to themselves: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood are going to wipe us out, the Salafists are going to commit atrocities, the only solution is Bashar’, and they believe it.
Part of the Syrian opposition think that the post-colonial Syrian Constitution would be ideal, but that’s their point of view. I think turning back the clock is impossible. The positive achievements of that constitution must naturally be retained, but the work of drafting a constitution concerns all Syrian citizens, as they see themselves now after the shock of 40 years of dictatorship. So it’s a matter of fitting themselves out with structures to avoid at all costs falling back into dictatorship.
And then there’s the sectarianism: it’s a fact, the Sunni Muslim and the Shia Muslim have become important protagonists; it’s not a matter of denying it, but the fears and troubles of other protagonists need to be taken into account.
They ought to work towards a new, consensus-based constitution, but not in a context of Lebanese-style community groupings, or federalism strictly speaking, because Syria is not a country that can be divided up into cantons. A suitable formula needs to be found. That is the essential precondition for ‘reconciliation’. Otherwise, the breakup of the country that is already in the works will become a reality.
In one discussion, it was asked whether Syria should be Arab or just Syrian so the Kurds would have a place in it. My answer is that it should be Arab in order to be inclusive. If it’s just ‘Syrian’, it runs the risk of steering a nationalistic, rigid, exclusive and sectarian course.
-------------------------
English version: Eric Rosencrantz
(Editing by Graham Tearse)
The text of the interview conducted in French is available here.
