What Trump means for Syria
By Omar Duwaji
Donald Trump won. He won. Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States.
I’m faced with the harsh realization that a Trump administration will dictate the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S. toward three already disenfranchised communities I identify with: Muslim Americans, Arab Americans and Syrians.
Donald Trump is no friend of Syrians. He is no friend of those opposed to Syrian President Bashar al Assad. And he is most definitely no friend to Syrian refugees, including the few who already call America their home.
Trump has repeatedly called for a complete suspension of Syrian refugee resettlement. He has completely “otherized” Syrian refugees with his rhetoric, without offering any alternatives as to how we, one of the most developed nations in the world, will honor the rights of refugees in the U.S. or abroad.
And then there’s the broader question of what will happen in Syria. The war there continues unabated with no signs of stopping. The Russians recently stepped up their bombing campaign, inflicting even more casualties in rebel-controlled east Aleppo. The UN estimates nearly half a million people have been killed in the fighting. Human rights groups put the blame for the overwhelming majority of the death and destruction on the Assad regime.
Bashar al Assad has survived the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. And it will now be even more difficult to put a stop to his war on his own people. Assad and his ally Vladimir Putin made no secret of who they supported in the U.S. presidential election: Donald Trump was their man. And with Trump’s approaching ascendency to the White House, Assad may now have a new ally.
Trump’s views on Syria are based on two things: the desire to eliminate ISIS and skepticism about the Syrian military opposition groups (not unlike President Obama, who’s been highly criticized for not doing more to stop the carnage). Repeatedly, in debates, Trump asked, “Who are the rebels?”
Trump has also said, “maybe [Assad’s] better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.”
(In case you need a refresher on all the countries involved in the fighting in Syria, take one minute to watch the video below.)
But Trump’s willingness to establish a working relationship with unsavory characters is well documented. Days after his election victory, Trump told the Wall Street Journal, “I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was, you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS.”
Based on these statements, it’s safe to assume a Trump administration would be no ally of the rebels the U.S. has been backing in opposition to Assad — even as they fight ISIS in northern and southern Syria.
But even more significantly, this signals the beginning of a new direction on Syria for the U.S. — one that is reminiscent of the Bush administration’s cooperation with Syria in the so-called “war on terror.” At the height of the Iraq War, the U.S. was sharing intelligence with the Assad regime and even sending innocent men to be interrogated in Syrian prisons from abroad.
And as long as Donald Trump views Assad as an ally in the “war on ISIS,” his policy in Syria will be to support the Syrian president and allow the Russians to continue their aerial attacks on rebel-held cities, towns and villages where ISIS has no presence.
So what can be done?
Above all, Syrians, wherever they are, need allies. Syrian refugees need a broad coalition of supporters in the U.S. to protect them from potential acts of violence, and to lobby state and local governments to protect the rights of refugees. Syrian refugees are going to be very vulnerable during the next four years; after all, it was Trump’s rhetoric that fueled much of the anti-refugee sentiment in the U.S. We must act now to let them know we’re here to support them and that no one is being deported on our watch.
And on the question of Syria, Americans can, and should, unite in constructing an entirely new anti-war movement. Though much of the anti-imperial left has opposed intervention, they’ve failed to articulate a proper response to the bloodbath in Syria. In many cases, they’ve supported the anti-democratic regime against its own people through media, protests and political lobbying.
What we need now more than ever — and time is of the essence — is a movement committed to bringing the war in Syria to a just and equitable end. This movement should show solidarity with Syrians under attack, while supporting Syrian civil society efforts to create alternatives to the regime and to the reactionaries on the ground. Pressuring Assad through military means (a no-fly zone, arming the opposition) appears to be off the table with Clinton’s loss to Trump, but that only means that the international community’s responsibility on Syria is even more urgent in negotiating peace through diplomatic means.
Many Syrians in the U.S. and their allies have felt at a loss since Election Day. They feel hopeless for the two countries — one of which is headed by a fascist whose main concern is retaining power by any means necessary, while the other will soon be headed by a narcissistic bigot and xenophobe keen on helping the former succeed.
Leaving the office after Trump’s win on election night, I got in an Uber feeling devastated. I struck up a conversation with the driver about the night’s events and how things were going to change. He looked over at me, and without knowing my background or of my homeland, he asked, “You know who I feel bad for?”
“Who?” I replied.
“Syrian refugees,” he said.
That this individual would remember Syrian refugees in this moment of insanity and depression struck a chord with me. It was touching that he’d think of another group of people that so many others had shown little care about.
“Those are my people,” I said.
