Will the Assad dynasty last?
by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
June 6, 2001
At last count, only two totalitarian leaders have succeeded in
passing power on to their sons. In 1994, Kim Il Sung of North
Korea managed this unlikely feat. And precisely a year ago this
Sunday, president Hafez al-Assad of Syria repeated the trick. In
both cases the youngish "revolutionary princes" have had a tough
time following their formidable fathers, to the point that one
wonders whether these rookies can hold on to power.
The case of 35-year-old Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is
particularly interesting because he tried to get out of the family
business. His career in ophthalmology took him to London and to
the worlds of science and hi-tech.
Only after his elder brother's death in 1994 was Bashar called
back and enrolled by his father in a fast-track tutorial on
dictatorship. On the death of Hafez last June 10, the regime's
grandees then flawlessly ushered Bashar to the presidency.
This background suggests on the one hand that the would-be eye-
doctor Bashar is cut from a very different cloth than his
megalomaniac father. On the other, it points to a neophyte ruler
unable to cut loose from his father's men.
And Bashar's first year in office has indeed reflected this duality.
For example, he started to open the country and then back-
tracked. Lectures and discussion groups temporarily were allowed
to convene, then organizers had to provide full details of each
event (participants, subject matter, etc.) 15 days in advance to get
a government license, effectively closing down this small step
toward civil society.
In foreign affairs, too, Bashar wends an erratic path. One moment,
he talks about resolving the conflict with Israel, the next he spouts
an extreme anti-Zionism (calling Israeli society "even more racist
than Nazism") and alienates Israelis with an obnoxious anti-
Semitism (Israelis try "to kill the principles of all religions with
the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ").
Bashar talks tough and acts weak. After Israeli aircraft hit Syrian
radar stations in mid-March, killing three Syrian soldiers, his
spokesman boasted that "Syria - leadership and people - will not
stand idle against continued Israeli attacks against the Arab
nation." But then Bashar proceeded to do exactly that - stand idly
by. He even instructed his Lebanese allies to cool it.
Speaking of Lebanon, although Bashar continues to deploy an
estimated 35,000 uniformed soldiers and 25,000 intelligence
officers in that country, what the New York Times calls "the icy
menace of his father" has evaporated.
Even the Lebanese president, hitherto a Damascene lapdog, dared
call the Syrian occupation "temporary." One wonders how long
the occupation can continue.
As for the United States, Bashar asks for American sympathy
toward his government, but then undercuts his standing by
dramatically expanding diplomatic and economic relations with
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In the words of one senior US
official, this is "a dangerous game by Syria and a big mistake."
With such a record, no one can figure out whether Bashar intends
to continue in his father's footsteps or to effect fundamental
changes in the system of government. Trouble is, both paths
currently appear unattainable.
Maintaining Hafez's perverse masterpiece of a Syria - where the
leader dominates every aspect of his country's life, occupies
neighboring Lebanon and plays a game of brinkmanship with
Israel - is probably beyond Bashar's cunning or ruthlessness.
Likewise, making a real break with the old system - by opening
Syria to normal economic and political life, withdrawing from
Lebanon and ending the conflict with Israel - also demands more
skill and initiative than he has shown.
Foreign leaders have unusually harsh things to say about Bashar.
"Garbage" is how Edward S. Walker, Jr., the recently retired US
assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, described his
rhetoric. "Ghastly" is how German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder
characterized his talks with Bashar.
At his first year's anniversary, in other words, Bashar gives the
impression of not being up to the job, but of bumbling through
from one day to the next. Of course, he might evolve into a more
decisive and effective ruler, but that can only happen if he
manages to remain the ruler.
Bashar's incompetence risks frittering away Hafez's hard-won
power. Unless he is a whole lot craftier than he has so far shown,
the days of the Assad dynasty may well be numbered.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT