Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 11° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Robert Fisk: Saddam revisited as Iraq accuses Syria of sheltering Baathist bombers

World Focus: In the Saddam-Hafez era, they hanged each other's bombers

An Iraqi woman places a floral tribute to bomb victims in Baghdad

AFP/Getty

An Iraqi woman places a floral tribute to bomb victims in Baghdad

In Damascus and Baghdad, it almost feels like the old days. Mutual abuse and recriminations, the recalling of ambassadors – and only a matter of time, perhaps, before Syria and Iraq break diplomatic relations.

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, demands an international tribunal because Syria won't hand over a couple of Iraqi Baathists whom he blames for the suicide bombing deaths of at least 100 civilians in Baghdad. Syria snaps back that it's always been a refuge for those facing "injustice".

Twenty years ago, Saddam Hussein and Hafez el-Assad sent bombers to Damascus and Baghdad to blow up each other's cities. Now Maliki and Hafez's son, Bashar, are attacking each other. For all the tribal connections, historical relations, the "fraternal" love of Arab unity – Syria likes to call itself the "beating heart of Arabism" – it seems the two neighbours will go on roaring at each other in time-honoured fashion.

In the Saddam-Hafez era, they hanged each other's bombers in public, Syria's agents swinging slowly in the breeze in Baghdad's public squares while Saddam's killers performed the same act in Damascus. These days, things are a little more civilised. The Iraqis don't actually capture any bombers – they have already vaporised themselves – but they call upon international law while the Syrians pose as the refugee safe haven of the Middle East.

Yet Syria clearly has the better memory, Maliki the shorter. Back in the bad old days of mutually hostile Syrian-Iraqi Baathism, Maliki and Jalal Talabani – now the President of Iraq – sought refuge in Damascus from the fury of Saddam's regime. Both were grateful – or at least they were then – that Hafez had taken mercy on their souls and welcomed them to the "mother of the Arab nation" (another Syrian sobriquet). Today, the Syrians have been quick to remind the pair of this act of generosity – and to point out their hypocrisy.

"Syria never handed over people who took shelter from the threat of injustice, arbitrary acts and death," the official Al-Thawra newspaper announced. "... they [Maliki and Talabani] all know what their fate would have been if Syria had such political morals." The Syrians have not denied that Mohamed al-Younis and Satam Farhan are in Damascus – al-Younis was a senior member of Saddam's Baath party – but have demanded proof of their involvement in the Baghdad bombings, something which Damascus believes (correctly) that the Iraqis will find it hard to provide.

But the hypocrisy that Syria condemns can be discovered on both sides of the border. I met the Syrian general in charge of building barriers and watchtowers along the Syrian-Iraqi frontier in what he clearly believed was a genuine effort to prevent the transit of insurgents into Iraq. But the last time I met the family of a suicide bomber in Lebanon – he assaulted an American convoy in western Iraq, very close to the Syrian border – I was told by his uncle that the man had "gone to Iraq because it was easier to cross the Syrian border to attack American soldiers than it was to cross the Lebanese border and attack the Israeli enemy".

In truth, there was always a gritty, no-nonsense but sometimes understanding relationship between Baathists in Iraq and Syria, even when Saddam was ruling. The founder of the party, Michel Aflaq, was a Syrian Christian who ended his days in Iraq. According to his family, his tomb was badly damaged after the 2003 American invasion – it lies in what is now the American-controlled Green Zone. As Baathists themselves, therefore, al-Younis and Farhan are merely "brothers" – brothers, indeed, who can no doubt add to Syria's formidable intelligence about American military strategy and Maliki's forces inside Iraq.

But Al-Thawra's praise of Syria's political integrity needs to be read with an eye on history. Syria never handed over people threatened with death, it tells us. But wasn't there a Kurdish guerrilla leader – a man called Abdullah Ocalan – who was nurtured by the Syrians, supported by the Syrians, threatened with death by the Turks, and then summarily told to leave Damascus when the Turks threatened military action against the Assad regime? And after various peregrinations in Africa, did he not end up in the hands of the Turkish secret service? He languishes to this day in a Turkish jail.

More from Robert Fisk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Bias
[info]gerryhiles wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 05:32 am (UTC)
I have been reading Robert Fisk's articles for many years and a lot of what he writes is very informing, but he is highly biassed and somewhat akin to the "British Raj" mentality concerning India, i.e. rather paternalistic as regards affairs in Lebanon and the ME generally.

Sure he has lived in Beirut for a long while, but it it is like he never left Maidstone in Kent ... the values and opinions he grew up with.

I shrugged-off such attitudes over 50 years ago ... yes I was born in England and grew up in Kent ... but Robert seems to be incapable of shedding some kind of attachment to his early years (lately he has written about his early life in Maidstone, etc.).

No I have not lived for a long period in any Arab country - just a few months in Libya - but it is obvious that Robert is ideologically opposed to Arab independence form the impositions of the British, French and (latterly) the US empires.

He is emotionally opposed to Ba'ath parties (which are socialistic) and anathema to his conservative outlook.

Overall he is not anything like an objective informant ... far too "British".
Re: Bias
[info]achilles0200 wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)
"He is emotionally opposed to Ba'ath parties (which are socialistic) and anathema to his conservative outlook."

Good for him. If what you say is correct then I am warming to Mr Fisk.

Have you any idea of the brutally repressive nature of that Ba'athists and how they dealt with opposition? Apparently not or else you don't give a damn. There is even that infamous film footage of Saddam Hussein accusing fellow members of the Ba'ath party of conspiriing against him following which these unfortunates are swiftly escorted out of the building to be summarily executed while the remaining members pledge their undying loyalty to the leader.

Oh well that's just the Arab way of doing things isn't it? "Let them get on with it I hear you say!" Arabs oppressing Arabs is permitted.
Re: Bias
[info]dt2401 wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 05:48 pm (UTC)
you should try reading the great war for civilisation if you think he is against arab independence!! some of his articles can be slightly irrelevant but on the whole they're pretty good!
Re: The truth
[info]tizab wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC)
The psychology of envy rules too heavily amongst the Arab nations and this does not leave any room for their unity. In their politics, they are disloyal to each other; and it is more often, that their neighbouring countries don't escape the consequences of these negative attributes. Look at the history of Palastine.
They often talk about the brotherhood between the Muslim nations, yet their psychology overcomes this. This means they are also pretenders to their own religion.
Robert is right to look at the history of the Middle East and write in the way he writes.
If there is a motive behind his writing in this way; he is relying on the facts in this case:
If there was a unity amongst the Arabs, would we have had sixty years of on going dispute over Palestine? It is still ongoing and has contaminated every nation with its virulent effects in the region. And the West is not/ and has never been blind to these negative attributes when deciding their foreign policy.
Regards,
Tizab
Re: Bias
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 01:03 pm (UTC)
You clearly haven't read much of what he writes. he will no doubt be fascinated to be viewed as a conservative colonialist.
What does Robert know?
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
Fisk claims that the Iraqi's cannot prove these twp ex Iraqi Baathists were behind this mass murder in Baghdad. How does he know this?

I saw Iraqi govt officials on Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq specifically and repeatedly state they had conclusive proff of these two mens guilt including telephone calls, confessions and a clear evidence trail from the bombers via the various police who let through the road blocks and back to Syria.

Someone is lying. My money is on Fisk. How does he know there is no evidence? It is simply an assertion.

Call it years of experience of his hate narratives that, as always, start from his conclusion then fill in like a child with a coloring book. Backwards thinking from a historian. Perhaps such is the crippled nature of a historians attempt to discern what is always a different future from the past they think they know so well.
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]matt_91912113 wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
HA HA!!!!What does Robert Fisk know? Well lets see. He is one of THE most respected journalists in the UK if not the world. He is famous for his analyisis and ability to see the core issues in every situation. He has been at the forfront of EVERY war in the Middle East for the last 40 years, 30 of which he has spent living in Beurit right throught the Lebanon war. He covered the entire Iran-Iraq war through the 1980's as well as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He covered the first Gulf War, he has reported from Algeria and Isreal, he even covered the Islamic Revolution in Iran. He has spent more time in that part of the world than any other journalist. His book "The Great War for Civilisation and Conquest of the Middle East" is an entire history of the Middle East and North Africa whilst also being a best seller along with "Pity thy Nation" the best selling accout of the lebanese war.

So quite alot actually. A hell of alot more than you would know on the situation. His years of accurate and compassionate reports speak from themselves, just because he is not a war loving hatemonger like yourself doesn't give you the right to question his expertise.
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]berwick53 wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
As one of Fisk`s brown nosed acolytes, you obviously believe every word that he writes, but who exactly decided that he is "one of THE most respected journalists in the UK if not the world", could it be you, his little hand maiden? His fame for "his analysis and ability to see the core issues in every situation", would make him the most remarkable man alive, which is obviously your thinking(?) His book, "The Great War for Civilization and the Conquest of the Middle East", is a piece of pretentious pap, masquerading as historical facts. The man is only a journalist, he writes to make money, so if he takes in poor little innocents along the way, he increases his fan base. He is neither an historian, nor unbiased academic, merely a biased observer who earns money by sensationalist rabble rousing, so you are just another unfortunate who has swallowed his fairy tales.
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
but you dont say how Fisk can state categorically as he does

[proof of their involvement in the Baghdad bombings, something which Damascus believes (correctly) that the Iraqis will find it hard to provide.]

I would have thought Syria would understand well the techniques the Iraqis have used to get the evidence that the elected govt says, on Al Jazeera and everywhere else, that it has.

Fisk doesn't know yet he states he does. I doubt he has many friends in Iraq's elected govt to give him proper info being, as he is, someone opposed to its creation from the very start and a major purveyor of the other side of the battle for Iraqi belief in their new democracy that hopefully Mr Fisk has lost and the Iraqi govt has won.

Still, he is compassionate. Or is he? Shake the baby, see it cry.
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]matt_91912113 wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC)
Are you taking the piss? Iraq is not a democracy, the government of Iraq is controlled by outsiders, foreign governments and oil companies, the people of Iraq live in a state of constant poverty, violence and fear at the hands of foreign and domestic soldiers. How is a country which has just suffered over 1 million deaths democratic? The Americans are doing what they did Nicuragua, terrorising the population to the point where they have to vote for someone. Democracy down a barrel of a gun for economic interest. Of course Fisk opposes it as he has seen it first hand. Do you honestly think that the Americans sole motivation for the carnage in Iraq was to give the poor Iraqis "democracy"?
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]mattymorland wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
All right Mrs Fisk, settle down.
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]brugnac wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 02:57 pm (UTC)
matt_91912113,
All these years of accurate and compassionate reports that you credit Fisk with, it`s good to have them confirmed and verified by an independent source such as yourself. God forbid that anyone should question the veracity of a Fisk story, the man is a legend in his own lifetime!!
Re: What does Robert know?
[info]manplant wrote:
Sunday, 13 September 2009 at 11:18 am (UTC)
Confessions? Not brought about by torture?
Police raodblocks? If they were efficient they would have stopped suicide bombers but their personell are not reliable and easily bribed.
Telephone conversations? These people are npt dumb enough to communicate such things over the telephone.
The people Fisk is talking about are possibly guilty but he is also correct in stating that there is no evidence. Look at all the bombings in Lebanon including that of Hariri. The Syrans in all probability are behind many of them but getting the evidence is another story.
Syria
[info]amvet wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC)
Poor Syria, a neighbor, Turkey, with a more powerful military, threatens to invade and to avoid a war, Syria gives up one person. Shameful. Civilized countries such as the UK give up persons to avoid a business loss.

The US and Israel are hot to control Syria and get an eternal agreement on borders, natural resources, military bases, etc.

Mr Fisk, Can we assume that your article was edited??? Amvet
Robert Fisk: Saddam revisited as Iraq accuses Syria of sheltering Baathist bombers
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 09:39 pm (UTC)
World Focus: In the Saddam-Hafez era, they hanged each other's bombers
Have you seen the Dumb And Dumber? Jim Kerry. SAY NO MORE MARY...
Say no more. Bob I am with you.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla

They are stealing Iraq completly and most Iraqis are starving
[info]haulako wrote:
Monday, 21 September 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC)
The thieves who are controlling Iraq now,both Sunni and Shia Muslims,are murdering Iraqi poor people.They care only for the wealth of Iraq,and they are ropping it completly,by the name of Islam.There is no justice at all in Iraq,and our politicians are not worrying about rebuilding Iraq and its soul.Never,they are only concerned about sending Iraqi wealth to their personal babk accounts in Europe and America.Of course Shia politicians are depositing their stolen wealth in Iran.The Yankees are not concerned about the majority starving people of Iraq,their only concern is getting free Iraqi oil.Its more precious for them than Iraqi blood.Baath party and Saddam Hussien were far better than the new politicians.At least they never steal in their 40 years control of Iraq more than what the Iraqi Mullahs both Shia and Sunni are steling in a month.I am Iraqi university professor who served Iraq for more than 25 years,with more than 20 scientific papers,published in reputed journals.I was very anti-Saddam activist,however I am now living as a disabled person in London.Iraqi governtment refused to give me any of my rights,i.e pension.I regret now my anti-Saddam feelings,and think he was a real Martyer.

P.S.I am shia and Sayed (Descendent from Prophet Mohammed)

Professor Hamed Mosafer,
76 Charlbert court,
London,
NW8 7DB

Most popular in Opinion