Guilty by association

Last year, Asma Al Assad was presented as an ideal portrait of a strong and modern Arab woman in a Vogue article titled A Rose in the Desert. Today, the wife of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad is the target of an international campaign led by the wives of European diplomats aimed at discrediting her and further tarnishing her husband's image.

The glamorous Vogue photographs were used to attack Asma in a video made by Huberta von Voss-Wittig, wife of Germany's ambassador to the UN Peter Wittig and Sheila Lyall Grant, wife of Britain's UN ambassador, Sir March Lyall Grant.

The video sought to highlight the stark difference between the Syrian First Lady's opulent lifestyle and the suffering of Syrian mothers and other victims of the Syrian conflict.

The video urged Asma to essentially abandon her husband: ‘Stand up for peace, Asma. Speak out now for the sake of your people!' it pleads.

The events in Syria are unfortunate, and the Syrian regime is undoubtedly responsible not only for the escalation in violence in the past year, but for denying the Syrian people basic rights for decades. However, the attacks on Asma are unwarranted for multiple reasons.

First, it is clear that the video is politically motivated and a mere publicity stunt. The decision to adopt the Syrian case while ignoring a host of other conflicts is not accidental. In fact, it is difficult to see what tangible change the video aims to accomplish and how it would actually help the women and children it claims to speak for.

It is doubtful that the diplomats' wives seriously expected their video to influence Asma's actions. Had the women adopted a case such as the conflict in Sudan or the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, the video would actually have had a positive impact.

The second reason why the video is distasteful is because it exposes negative stereotypes towards Arab women. Inherent in the message is the assumption that European values are superior to that of Arabs and Muslims.

Unfair perception

The video seems to suggest that if Asma lived and grew up in the Middle East, it would be understandable if she was unable to make the right decisions. But given that Asma has been exposed to European ideas and way of life, she has no excuse. After all, she grew up in Britain and obtained a western education. Therefore, the expectations are for her to ‘behave better', because she should ‘know better'.

This bias assumes that the actions of the Arab leader are barbaric and irrational, but could have been moulded with the help of a western educated wife.

Further, the argument presented in the video carries the expectations that the wives of influential men have the power to shape crucial decisions. While this might be correct in some selective cases, the assumption is an overly simplistic and superficial viewpoint. Even in the most authoritarian regimes, a wide range of issues factor into a leaders' decision. Both internal and external circumstance might force the adoption of a particular policy over another.

On the issue of Asma's lavish lifestyle, it is indeed a stark and sad contrast to poor Syrians. But the great gap between the haves in power and the havenots, is not different in any part of the world. Certainly, images of the poor and homeless in Britain and Germany will look like a far cry from designer wear, lavish parties and expensive champagne which is part of the lifestyle of a western diplomat's wife.

Finally, the video raises a number of controversial issues as it blurs the line between the perpetrators of the Syrian violence and anyone connected to them on a personal level.

If the desire for revenge and the need to make political gains lead to the persecution of those ‘guilty by association,' then innocent family members will be targeted and there is no telling which family will be next.

 Dina Khanat is a political analyst and adjunct professor of Humanities and Social Science at Zayed University.