The fall of a man and the aftershocks

Who is Nizar Nayyouf – where did he come from, and why is his name being heard so often today? How is it that someone like Nayyouf – unheard of before 2000, has made such an international name for himself?

By arresting him 10 years ago, the Syrian government set the spotlight on his name. The government did for Nayyouf what Iran did for Salman Rushdie and his book. Had it not been for Khomeini's fatwa, calling for Rushdie's blood, his book and his name would have been unheard of outside limited literary circles in Britain.

Similarly, by keeping Nayyouf in captivity, Syria has unwittingly turned him into a champion (in the eyes of some, at least). By releasing him in May 2001, and trying to abduct him in June 2001, the state has made him into an international figure. Yet at the end of the day, Nayyouf is not a hero – nor is he the champion of a cause. He is just a passing name in Syrian history. He is one of those names who shine briefly, make a lot of commotion, then die out as rapidly as it rose to fame. Ten years from now, probably no one will remember who Nayyouf was.

But he is simply a man who appeared at the wrong time, with the wrong argument, under the worst of circumstances. At a time where Ariel Sharon was threatening Syria with war, Nayyouf appeared on Al-Jazeera television in 2001 to undermine the Syrian government. This is something that everyone, even the loudest of democracy advocates, cannot accept. He tried to gain popular appeal by speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood clash between the Assad regime and its opponents in the 1980s, but found that nobody in Syria was willing to listen.

This particular conflict brought nothing but grief, terror, and anguish to the Syrian state and its people. Contrary to what Nayyouf wants, nobody in Syria wants to remember these days. While Syrians were looking forward to a better future, wanting to move on and reform, Nayyouf was looking back into what seems to be a distant past. Ten days ago, Nayyouf was abducted, beaten, and found at a hospital in Belgium. Nobody in Syria seemed to care. Why have people ignored Nayyouf?

A low key-journalist, Nizar Nayyouf used to serve as editor-in-chief of the banned human rights publication, Voice of Democracy. In 1990 he wrote an article questioning the legitimacy of the late President Hafez Al Assad, and as a result, was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in jail. Several international petitions were made on his behalf and he was finally released by Bashar Al Assad in May 2001.

In the summer of 2001, he spearheaded a movement that called for the arrest and trial of all "war criminals in Syria." On one occasion, he claimed to have been kidnapped by masked men in Damascus. On another, he accused the state of trying to arrange for a deliberate car crash for him and his attorney. Assad personally intervened on his behalf and permitted his departure to France for medical treatment.

On May 27, Nayyouf disappeared in Europe. He was found a few hours later in Belgium at a local hospital, suffering from heavy beatings while in captivity. He indirectly accused the regime of having ordered the beating. Many in Syria, including myself, believe that the entire story is fabricated. The news, which received prime coverage on the Al-Jazeera television, was mildly received in Syria. The events in Palestine and the deteriorating economic conditions at home were apparently more interesting news for the Syrian audience.

Many contradictions

Nayyouf is someone who tried and failed at changing things. When his campaign amounted to nothing in 2001 he decided to give his name a face-lift. By the accounts of those who served prison terms with him, he is a man of many contradictions. He is full of spite for the government, which makes him lose much of his credibility. Nayyouf fails to realise that the state is simply too strong – stronger for sure, than him, and will not falter at the hands of an independent journalist. Nor will he be able to damage the credibility of a regime – accepted and respected by the international community.

His proposed demands, however, are without doubt, the desires of every Syrian. Everyone wants democracy, respect of human rights, political pluralism, freedom of the press, and a general amnesty to be issued. Nayyouf wants to overthrow the existing order to achieve his ends, while moderate Syrians want to change things through public awareness and diplomacy, conducted through official channels and government institutions. These people want to "cooperate" with the young President Assad in bringing about gradual and serious change to Syria.

So far, the leaders of this moderate branch are a middle-aged generation of Syrians. They are either parliamentarians, politicians, or intellectuals. These people, respected as they are, are not the ones qualified to lead the reform campaign in Syria. Of course, nor is Nayyouf. Over the years, through their interaction with the existing order, they have developed alliances, grudges, and rivalries with certain parties, officials, and elements of society. Therefore dialogue and cooperation should be conducted with a new generation of Syrians – those who hold no grudges, hold no complexities, have no social, ideological or sectarian rivalries and commitments, are former allies of no one, and only want what is best for their country.

The era of familiar faces should be terminated, and a new, fresh, and mysterious generation should be given the opportunity to speak out, work, and offer its knowhow, education and training to Syria. This generation, which the young Assad has promised to support, are the ones who truly are not hungry for power, money, fame, or positions. They simply have so much to give, and such limited space to offer, that they often end up giving their services to some country in the Gulf, Lebanon, or Europe and the United States.

All they want is to work, be appreciated, live a decent life, and at the end of the day, benefit their families and country. So far, all that Syria has given them has been a lousy education, a harsh military service, and a first hand expose to the ideals of favouritism where their opportunities, careers, and positions are taken by the offspring of generals and officials.

Three generations have been raised feeling that they are strangers in Syria and cannot live decently unless they work for or with someone related to the regime. This generation received news of Nayyouf's May 27 abduction in a very passive manner. It is not a surprise, however, since political activity and interest in Syria and most of the world is a luxury reserved for those who have both the time and money to think about idealistic terms like political pluralism, human rights, and freedom of speech.

At the end of the day, average Syrians are more interested in making enough money for their families than following the news of Nayyouf. The majority of Syrian youth are occupied with more pressing and concrete issues – finding a decent job, obtaining their graduate studies, saving enough money to buy a house, and getting married. They don't have the luxury or the interest of sitting back in a leather couch, smoking a cigar