Huberta and Sheila have husbands who work at the United Nations, but these two women are apparently totally ignorant of the UN Charter's article 51 which allows any President, and in this case President Assad in particular "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations".
If armed terrorists arrive in London or Berlin, in the dead of night, having crossed borders illegally, and well funded and supplied with all the latest killing weapons, and intent on killing as many police, soldiers and civilians as possible, Huberta and Sheila would have us to believe that we must all welcome them with open arms and never try to fight back to save innocent lives. I certainly hope armed terrorists never arrive in London or Berlin because I have had to live through a year of daily killings, rapes, tortures and maiming of innocent people. It is the duty of President Bashar Al Asad to defend the Syrian public from armed terrorist attacks.
Huberta and Sheila represent either the ignorance of two individuals who know nothing about the true source of violence inside Syria, or they represent two western women who are using their husband's political positions to demand regime change in Syria.
Let us say that I hate Angela Merkel and David Cameron. Let us say my political views are dead set against everything those two leaders stand for. Should I then find funding for weapons and mercenary terrorists and begin a campaign of terror inside Britain and Germany? Or perhaps I should keep my money and weapons to myself and let the British and German public decide who they want as their leader. What gives Britain or Germany the right to impose regime change on 23 million Syrians?
Then we have that small minor detail of numbers. Of the 23 million Syrian citizens, about 75% are in support of President Bashar Al Asad. There are about 25% who are in opposition. Shall the "international community' demand regime change when the majority of the citizens do not ask for regime change? Wouldn't it make better sense to use peaceful methods to negotiate political changes inside Syria, which would eventually lead to greater freedom and democracy, and free, open elections?
Syria was once one party rule. Everything was the Ba'ath party only. If you were a communist, you went to jail. That has changed. There are now 10 registered parties, including the communist party. The nationwide municipal elections happened, without violence, and in free and open conditions. Next month will be parliamentary elections. Once the totally new parliament sits there will be new laws and many changes, based on what the people want. The Syrian people have found their voice and are not afraid to use it. The totally new constitution was ratified by national election. There is no emergency law in Syria. Opposition, even armed opposition, was given amnesty (except in the case of murder). Protests were made legal, but must be registered, just like the laws in western countries covering demonstrations in public. The next Presidential election is 2014. Hopefully by then the new freedoms and democracies which have evolved here in Syria will have become entrenched and part of daily life.
Democracy does not have to come from bloodshed and destruction. It is possible to go from a political system of limited freedoms to a fully free and democratic nation without regime change, mass destruction and the slaughter of innocent civilians and soldiers. I am proud of the Syrian first lady Asma Al Asad. She is a positive role model for Syrian women and an educated and contributing member of Syrian society.
Related links:
Wives of British and German ambassadors to UN produce video calling on Syrian president's wife 'to ...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
1
