Ribal Al-Assad, the Director of the ODFS, delivered a speech on ‘Syria and the Arab Spring’ and called for a peaceful transition in Syria at the internationally respected Indian think tank, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), to an audience of intellectuals, policy analysts and diplomats.The talk was chaired by Mr. Saeed Naqvi, a noted expert on West Asia and a Distinguished Fellow at ORF. The talk was attended by British, French and American diplomats, and former Ambassador M K Rasgotra, a former Foreign Secretary and former Ambassador Kanwal Sibal, a former Foreign Secretary. The talk was well received and concluded with a comprehensive Q & A Session.

The Observer Research Foundation is a non profit, multidisciplinary public policy think tank engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India.

Ribal Al-Assad made the following speech:

It is an honour and a privilege to be speaking to such a inspiring group of thinkers, at such a critical time in International Relations across the world.

As the UN fails once more to agree a resolution on Syria, my country hangs on the precipice of war.

And not just a civil war but a regional war, armed and funded by countries across the region and backed by vested interests across the world.

A military solution would be a disaster for my country.

For me, the only answer is a change not just of our regime but of our entire political process.

Which is why Hillary Clinton’s strong words on Saturday in response to the Russian and Chinese veto need to be analysed carefully.

She abhorred the veto.

And spoke up for regime change.

But she also spoke about a “democratic future” for Syria.

Which sounds perfect as a sound-bite until one looks at the Turkish-sponsored opposition to the incumbent regime which carries with it a lethal cocktail of unquestionably fundamentalist influences.

If they inherit power, the consequences may be equally severe for my country.

And although I am sure we all agree that the regime’s behaviour is outrageous, we must do everything we can to ensure a peaceful, pluralistic and moderate future.

This is, of course, a subject to which I shall return.

India is a golden example for those of us who shine a light to democracy.

You have made it work in a country that is not just huge and ethnically diverse, but one that has sectarian issues of its own.

You do not need to be told that yours is the biggest democracy on earth, or that you have overcome real crises along the way.

You understand that there are no magic solutions, and that there are many long and painful steps on the road to democracy.

But having walked every one of them, you know that it is a journey worth making.

Before I discuss this in more detail, I am aware that my surname cannot be ignored in this context.

I understand that the name has much associated baggage, and quite rightly so.

But it also gives me an unparalleled insight and opportunity.

Syria has a difficult recent past.

It also has another side – more liberal and progressive.

And that is a heritage of which I am incredibly proud.

Syria means many things to many people. As does my surname.

I would like to make it clear that I am a Syrian.

I am a democrat.

And I am a liberal.

And although I am proud to be an Assad, I have never served the regime, nor have I ever supported it.

And, like every one of you and billions watching around the world, I have been transfixed by the Arab Spring.

Every schoolchild knows that the First World War was sparked off by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

And in the years to come, they will also learn that the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2010, was sparked-off, both literally and metaphorically, when a 26 year old Tunisian graduate named Mohammed Bouazizi, frustrated by his lack of career, compounded by the authorities confiscation of his fruit and veg’ stall, set himself on fire.

Those sparks were carried by the wind, and twenty first century technology across Tunisia, Northern Africa and the Middle East.

And what began as a protest over specific social and economic conditions, morphed into a million calls for democracy and reform.

As a result, and in the interests of journalistic drama and simplicity, the term ‘Arab Spring’ was coined, a phrase that is both wonderfully evocative, and fundamentally misleading.

For a start, it suggests a common uprising and series of events across the region.

And although it may have begun with a single flame, and share, along with every populist movement, deep-rooted poverty, within countries defined by dysfunctional economies, nepotism and corruption, the circumstances within each of the nations it has effected are very different.

As a result, we have not witnessed the straight-forward domino effect of toppling dictatorships, as seen two decades ago in Eastern Europe.

Because we are dealing with much more oppressive regimes, within a far more complex web of international relations.

And we cannot see the death of Mohammed Bouazizi as a fundamental ‘cause’ of the Spring, any more than the assassination of Franz Ferdinand ‘caused’ the First World War.

They may have lit the fuse, but in each case the true causes were much more deeply ingrained in their respective societies.

And on the subject of misrepresentations, we should not be misled by the word ‘Spring’, a word that suggests a positive regeneration, and a sprightly step on the road to summer.

Rather than a period of unrequited hope between two winters.

Analysis of the Spring must bear this is mind, and must not ignore the future possibilities – and realistic probabilities – that may follow.

These probabilities have been learned the hard way by countries around the world.

Because recent history proves that if the strategy of protestors and their foreign backers is simply to overthrow a regime, the strategy will usually succeed.

But that has regularly proved to be the wrong strategy.

Iraq proved once and for all that overthrow must be the means to an end, not an end in itself.

The real key to the various strands within the Arab Spring, is what comes next.

And a review of the ‘Spring’ across the region highlights the great paradox of the protest movement:

It is easy to make a noise demanding change, but not so easy to create long-lasting, fundamental change.

Tunisia and Egypt have both appeared tantalisingly close to new, democratically-elected governments.

But the promise of a democratic future in Egypt is becoming ever cloudier.

It is over a year since the overthrow of the president, and the state remains under military control under the leadership of Field Marshal Tantawi, ex-president Mubarak’s Best Friend, with extremists in the ascendancy.

And the elections that have been held, proved a success only for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, two groups who represent different sides of the same sinister coin.

Meanwhile, in Tunisia, elections were followed by immediate concerns about their legitimacy.

Violent protests broke out in the central town of Sidi Bouzid after the election results were announced, with tear gas dispersing people protesting against the cancellation of the Popular List party in six electoral districts because of ‘financial irregularities’.

Libya witnessed an international intervention and a civil war, leading to the much-publicised overthrow of a dictator.

But loyalists to the old regime continue to cause trouble, and the recent uprising in Bani Walid threatens to spread, whilst 2012 has already seen militia groups clashing on the streets of Tripoli.

And so Gadaffi has gone, but what next?

A million and a half members of the Orfalah and other supportive tribes remain, sworn to take their revenge.

The real struggle is only just beginning.

In Iran, meanwhile, the ‘Green Revolution’ had already been put down two years earlier with frightening force, by an Imperialist regime now posturing with intent across the region.

It has reacted to the protestors within, by flexing its muscles abroad, from the straits of Hormuz, via Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and the UAE, to Syria – a subject to which I shall return.

Iran is posturing for a fight, with the aim of using proxy groups to exercise greater influence and control in the region.

And so to date, these high profile players in the ‘Spring’ have met with very different outcomes.

Outcomes that cannot be analysed without an understanding of what is going on in other countries across the region.

Because international relations there, can only be truly understood through the prism of the ever-growing strategic enmity between Iran and Turkey.

Turkey is traditionally the staging post between East and West, and never has this been more true.

A century ago it was at the heart of the Ottoman Empire, and its influence is spreading once again across the region, and we all remember how it started to win support prior to the “Spring”, most notably during the well-publicised flotilla incident on the 31st of May 2010.

As its economic links with Europe and the United States grow, so its influence in the Middle East soars.

And that influence revolves around its political, cultural and religious opposition to Iran.

On that basis it courts Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two states emerging as key power brokers in the Arab League, whose own testy relationship has finally found common ground over common interests with respect to Iran.

Qatar maintains cordial relations with Iran, with the motive of maintaining its interests in the South Pars Gas Field, but, in line with Saudi and Turkey, it is also breeding Islamic fundamentalism.

The aim is to split the region down Sectarian lines, inciting violence on state-sponsored televisions, such as Safa and Wisal, and with clerics openly calling for Jihad against the Shiaas and Alawites.

And although there is no serious threat to the incumbent regimes in any of those countries, it is their influence, and support for the ever-growing extremist groups, that presents the greatest threat to the entire world, particularly those countries experiencing the ‘Arab Spring’.

And should it succeed in bringing extremist governments to power, their policies and approach will come back with a vengeance to bite the countries that have facilitated their rise.

Meanwhile, vested interests in the Spring are spread across the planet.

You will not need reminding that it sits at the centre of a world whose economic crisis, has contributed to increasing international tension.

A new cold war is developing between Russia and China on one side and NATO on the other.

Their issues range from US policy of encirclement, and the U.S military shield, to Chinese currency protectionism.

And these problems are only going to escalate.

And when Superpowers clash, the reverberations are felt in the Middle East.

For many years, the focus has been Israel.

But as we witnessed at the United Nations over the weekend, the focus is now Syria, which is witnessing the full-brunt of a sectarian divide between Shiaas and Sunnis across the Arab world.

The Shiaas are led by Iran, supported by Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and backed by Russia and China.

The Sunnis are led by Turkey which has the United States’ proxy, supported by Qatar, Saudi, who are backing the fundamentalists across the region.

I will move onto Syria shortly, but any analysis of the situation in my own country, requires an understanding of the ever-growing tide of Islamic extremism.

In India, you are well aware of its dangers.

I will return to this subject, but it provides the key context for what follows.

Because if the ‘Arab Spring’s’ outcome, is to bring Islamists to power across the region, then it is not only the Middle East that will suffer, but the entire world.

India has endured its own terrorist experiences, and I am sure that every one of us in this room abhors extremism.

Which is not to say that we cannot understand it.

It is a net that catches the disaffected.

From the young men like Mohammed Bouazizi whose business license is revoked by the State, to the impressionable student who cannot afford to study, and the wounded protestor, who cannot see a solution to his problems in society as it stands.

And with no welfare state, no democratic recourse, no viable, believable opposition, and a proactive fundamentalist movement pouring oil onto the sparks of discontent, pointing fingers and offering alluring rewards, an extremist response to misfortune, corruption and poverty is almost unavoidable.

But while democratic parties are disallowed funding, offices or any form of promotion, there is a significant infrastructure supporting extremism across the region.

And it is based in Mosques.

The financial contribution of ‘Zakat’ provides considerable cash-flow, and Friday prayers provide a forum for incitement from the pulpit.

It is no coincidence that Syria all demonstrations for the first couple of months used to take place after Friday prayers with a different name to each Friday.

Which brings me to Syria, the country closest to my heart, that is fast becoming a pawn in this enormous game of diplomatic chess.

Syria is squashed geographically and ideologically, between the imperialist inclinations of Iran (from where Tehran and Hizbullah back the current regime in Damascus), and its opponents across the region, including Turkey, Saudi and Qatar, who, prior to the ‘Spring’ unsuccessfully tried to woo President Assad from the grips of his relationship with Iran.

But the Syrian regime remained tied to Tehran, leading Turkey to develop a second, more extreme approach, along sectarian lines.

And as I mentioned earlier, sitting back from this hotbed of international relations, are the world’s superpowers: China, Russia, and the United States, which has delegated its responsibilities to Ankara.

It seems to be reacting to the consequences of its previously interventionist foreign policy, by turning its back on its international responsibilities.

Which ignores the possibility of a third option, namely a more proactive diplomatic, non-military role.

Again, this is a subject to which I shall return.

Because in America’s absence, there are no shortage of troops and weapons building up in and around Syria.

Half a million Iranians have been travelling across the border in the past decade, and they are not all there on holiday.

Meanwhile, Ankara’s foreign minister Ahmet Davitoglu is among those to have made open threats.

Weapons are reported to be delivered from Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan to the Free Syrian Army and other armed groups.

And I have not yet touched on the ‘unofficial’ Islamic extremists wading into the heart of the protest movement with absolutely no interest in peace.

And so that’s the international context.

Which has not received anything like the level of coverage afforded to the events inside Syria.

The fate of the ‘Arab Spring’ in our country is well documented.

The peaceful marches.

The brutal response by the regime.

There are enough words and film clips to condemn.

And I am not here to tell you what you already know.

Or to shock you with statistics and atrocities. That’s a job for the journalists.

But the protests have had some effect.

Because the world is now queuing up to demand regime change.

The Arab League has come and gone, without tangible effects.

And the brutality continues.

But it is a mistake to confuse ‘evil’ and ‘despotic’ with ‘stupid’.

We are dealing with a clever, secular regime.

A regime who are masters of propaganda.

A regime who have managed to make a ‘State of Emergency’ last fifty years.

A regime with such an uncanny ability to spin, that its people have started to doubt themselves.

Sadly, the regime’s words have never turned into actions.

If half its promises had become reality, the lives of millions of Syrians would be improved.

But why is it, when there appears to be such a profound and widespread enmity to the regime, that it remains in power?

Surely the murder of over 5,000 people in nine months should have led to a united uprising?

And why did a recent YouGov Siraj pole on Syria commissioned by the Doha debates and funded by the Qatar foundation poll 55% of Syrians as wanting President Assad to stay, with a promise of free elections in the near future?

In essence, it is because they fear that the alternative could be worse.

Which is the greatest fear of any liberal who understands the true extend of the fundamentalist support for the opposition to the regime.

Even the President himself, admitted on US television that most Syrians are not with him, but stuck ‘in the middle’.

Because they have seen the peaceful protests on the streets hijacked by imported fundamentalists.

They have seen the sectarian incitement on Saudi backed TVs.

They can see civil war looming.

They understand that the regime needs to change, but there needs to be a credible and peaceful alternative.

And at present, there is no integrated opposition to the regime.

In theory, the exiled Syrian National Council represents the multifarious branches of opposition.

And at a recent EU conference, Basma Qodmani claimed that the SNC had 90% support of the Syrian people.

Which is a galling misrepresentation, and by making such statements, how different are they from the Regime?

To understand why it is so misleading, one needs to understand that 45-50% of the Syrian population is made up of minorities.

Our people represent a mosaic of cultural and religious backgrounds, people desperate for a moderate political agenda.

And although they are not receiving it under President Assad, nor do they relish the prospect of living under the auspices of an opposition (SNC) with an arms-open policy to members of the infamous Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists, It’s membership is 80% Islamist.

The SNC’s behaviour bounces between the absurd and the dangerous.

Outside a recent meeting with the Arab League, members of the internal opposition – the Syrian National Coordination Committee, were attacked by SNC members throwing apples, tomatoes and punches, because they believe in dialogue.

A recent EU conference held by the ECR Group in the European Parliament, was aimed at creating a platform for dialogue between the opposition.

The SNC boycotted it, and helped organise a rival conference.

This approach could not be less inclusive, or representative of the moderate Syrian majority.

It is an opposition that does not just call for the immediate exit from our country of the regime, but also two million members of the Ba’ath party, not to mention half a million members of the army.

Which is fundamentally impractical, and is already leading to further sectarian entrenchment.

A hard-line, extreme opposition that squabbles and excludes, is hardly the best alternative to an admittedly brutal regime.

David Cameron may be amongst the many foreign leaders who say that dictators will no longer be supported in the name of security, but change must have a secure alternative in mind.

I have referred previously to the spiral of exclusion and hopelessness that breeds extremism.

Dictatorships breed corruption.

Corruption breeds poverty.

Poverty breeds ignorance.

Ignorance breeds extremism.

Extremism breeds terrorism

And the Syrian version of the ’Arab Spring’ has demonstrated this in fast forward.

In our case, the dictatorship, corruption and poverty were in place.

At which point the majority of Syrian protestors were not armed extremists.

But the regime has fired indiscriminately at moderate protestors seeking democratic reform and chanting “Peaceful, Peaceful, Peaceful”, and “One, one, one, the Syrian people are one”.

And a toxic mix of a sectarian divide within the country, and an opposition whose first instinct is to propagate that divide, has created a situation where state-sponsored fundamentalists from neighbouring states, continue to pour into the country with black hearts and loaded guns.

As a result, Syria is on a course to become the battleground for a regional war, pitching Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, with tacit support from Russia and China, against NATO-backed Turkey and its allies, including Saudi and Qatar.

One would hope that the world would understand that this cauldron is bubbling towards its inevitable, cataclysmic conclusion in Syria.

But notwithstanding the calls for the President to step-down, the only decisive action being taken by the international community, is intensifying the pressure.

In Turkey, Prime Minister Erdoğan backs the Islamic fundamentalist SNC opposition which was formed in Turkey by a sympathetic regime.

Meanwhile, his country, along with Saudi and Qatar house and export militant Islamist extremists keen to exploit sectarian tensions in Syria, where we hear that they have been joined by Libyan Al-Qaida fighters {led by a former Al Qaida member Bel Hajj} gathering in Turkey to fight in Syria.

Saudi and Qatari back Islamists calling on TV for the killing of Syrian minorities.

And President Assad uses all this as evidence that his persecuted people are safer under his protection.

And so the trouble escalates.

The Arab League’s observer mission showed that armed violence is not restricted to the regime’s forces.

Homs is one of many Syrian cities bearing an increasing resemblance to Beirut in the 1980s or Sarajevo in the 1990s, with battles between militias raging across sectarian and ethnic fault lines.

And as a full-scale civil war becomes ever more likely, the US continues its policy of benign neglect.

It seems to hope for regime change, without undertaking detailed analysis of the opposition.

Which means that although some lessons have been learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, the question of ‘what happens next’, has not.

This is, of course, a region where realpolitik dictates the diplomatic agenda.

The Middle East cares less for the Syrian people, than the strategic advantages of a sympathetic ear in Damascus.

But as democrats, we must pay more attention to the key question of ‘what next?’.

Joy in Tahrir Square and Maydan Al Shuhadaa has not proved to be an end in itself.

And neither will the Syrian regime’s inevitable departure be the end.

It will actually be the beginning of something equally frightening if not handled the right way.

Sadly, it is too late for a quick and easy solution.

There is no magic wand that can immediately unravel this problem.

But any hope of a democratic future for Syria, rests upon a unified opposition, who genuinely want peace and democracy for the full spectrum of our population.

There are many examples in South America, Eastern Europe and Africa, to suggest that regimes that follow a dictatorship rarely live up to expectations.

They often become unpopular, and rarely last long.

But they need to set out with a chance of success, the support of a democratic majority, and constitution.

Without them, any revolution will only lead to a new dictatorship, evidence of which is provided by a study of Iranian history over the past three decades.

Which brings me to a close.

I am sure that many of you follow the Tweeted thoughts of your very own Brahma Chellaney

He commented last week that, and I quote:

“A once-peaceful, secular Syria is in danger of becoming another Afghanistan, thanks to ugly big-power geopolitics and cross-border arms flow.”

His words were pithy and hit the bull’s-eye.

The West has failed in the past.

It has propped up dictators in the name of stability.

It has deposed others and created a power vacuum.

It is now demonstrating a third way:

Inertia.

From my perspective, that won’t solve a thing.

Syria does not need military intervention.

But it does need every chance to develop democracy and fair representation to create a sustainable middle ground.

This is a key moment not just for the country but for the entire Middle East, and, by definition, the rest of the world.

Which is why I ran the first Arab satellite TV channel promoting democracy in Syria from 1997.

And why I then founded the ODFS in 2009, well before the ‘Arab Spring’ began.

We are an organisation that sees the only true opposition to oppression as freedom, plurality, education and prosperity.

In Syria, as in so many un-free countries, the state infrastructure is currently worried less about its people’s welfare than its own preservation.

That needs to change.

It is all very well hearing the calls for change from the Arab League, but they are hardly representing democracies.

Nor can they make the point that it is not a government’s role to ‘protect’ minorities, but to ‘include’ them.

Because it is pluralism that defines a genuine democracy.

And if we are for democracy, we are for democracy everywhere, irrespective of the hardships involved in getting there.

There is a pervasive attitude towards democracy in parts of the Middle East, that it is simply a ‘Western’ value.

As Indians, you will realise quite how wrong this is, as the earliest forms of democracy were apparent here.

But the reaction to the protests on the streets of Syria proves that the democracy is not going to emerge organically on the streets of our cities.

It will not come about as a result of instructions from the Arab League, who have no desire for genuine pluralism.

It will not come from whispered murmurs of disapproval from Washington, whose policy has become nothing more than one of benign neglect.

Nor will it come from Ankara, Riyadh or Doha, where the Syrian people are irrelevant bystanders in a demonic game of regional politics and sectarian interests.

It can only come from proactive diplomatic intervention from the United States and the West.

We need the United States to articulate a clear policy on Syria, that will then facilitate a process of dialogue across the entire Syrian opposition.

That opposition must be representative of all our people.

And it’s sole focus must be to introduce peaceful change, which can only survive through a genuine commitment to a reform agenda.

The weekend witnessed more atrocities in Homs, dispute at the United Nations, and a general understanding that we are on the cusp of civil war.

And so events are moving fast, but liberal reform presents the only chance my country has of moving away from a nation built on grudges and hatred.

And that is a factor too often over-looked in the West’s haste to hasten the downfall of the regime.

On that basis, the opposition to the incumbent regime must stop supporting Islamists, stop inciting violence on TVs and in Mosques, and end its vision of a solution based on sectarian involvement.

Thank you once again for listening.

I hope that future generations will be able to use the example of a democratic Syria, in the same way that I currently point to a democratic India, as an example of where we want to be.