Professor Owen, minorities in Syria are facing and will face major challenges. What about the Kurds?

It is necessary to draw a distinction between the interests of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (Pkk) and the remaining Kurdish movements who are trying to take advantage of the current crisis. There is a continuous flow of Turkish and Iraqi Kurds to Washington. The Iraqi Kurds argue that their administration would be far more effective than the al-Maliki government.

However, just two families manage the entire flow of international aid into Iraq. Christians and Sunnis are also waiting: if they can afford it, they try to leave for Beirut. The most worrisome thing is the presence of the Alawites who have displaced Sunni Muslims within many villages. Moreover, it is interesting to look at the Druzes, because they do not have any external support. So they are forced to find a refuge in the mountains.

At this stage, the situation on the field appears unclear.

We cannot draw a map of Syria at the moment. The government assures us it controls some cities but not others. The army has just two reliable divisions. In this context, military personnel are forced to withdraw from some areas and the rebels take advantage of this. Certainly, the regular army aims to control the borders, especially with Iraq and Jordan because it is from there that weapons flow into the country. The same happens in the north, along the border with Turkey and Lebanon. This allows the transfer of war materials from one side to the other of the country, destabilizing the regime.

However, it is very difficult to grasp the nature of the Syrian opposition.

There are ideologically-driven as well as local opposition movements who draw on weapons and money coming from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. There are the Qaedists who are very well organized, but they have no links with the previous type of rebel. The jihadists have tried to establish popular committees and courts, but they cannot put in place a restrictive interpretation of Sharia. Neither can they impose themselves on the population because there are not many of them, as was the case in Afghanistan, even if they are ready to die.

Former and current U.S. Secretaries of State Hilary Clinton and John Kerry both attempted to unify the opposition. They began with the intention of giving aid to ngo’s, but they could not find any. What they should do in fact is to support the women’s associations in the north of the country: they are the only ones who know what the people need and who controls each local network. Finally, the Syrians of Washington and London act as lobbies in favour of military intervention, but they too are not an organized and coordinated movement.

If the attempt to unify the opposition has failed, what is now the strategy of the United States?

They only have an end game in sight. If Assad is defeated, they would support the intervention of Saudi and Qatari soldiers in Syria favouring the refugees’ return to the country. They fear that control could pass into the hands of the Muslim Brothers. But it is too late to intervene now. They are waiting for the moment when the Syrians become exhausted. Meanwhile, the Russian authorities do not want to see regime change. They know that Assad has a good army, able to shoot down Turkish planes. It is important that there is a general feeling that Israel will not attack Iran. Nevertheless, the fear is that missiles might arrive from the South of Lebanon and this spreads terror in Tel Aviv.

Is the Syrian economy as bankrupt as was its counterpart in Egypt?

The economy never collapses. People find a way to restart, and not only people on the rebel side. These people live in a free market. For sure, such a crisis entails the return of long term planning. Thus, the left, whether it has been killed off or incorporated into the status quo in the past, could be back, beginning in Egypt. Ordinary people are living through a revolutionary moment, especially middle class women. They are experiencing a sexual liberation, and it does not matter how long they have to wait before incorporating that into their legislation – they won’t let it go.

Does the current transformation of the Middle East have any historical precedent?

In 1917-18 Russia, local leaders organized popular committees relying on the trust of the people. However, Middle East societies are patriarchal, managed by religious and political authorities. Revolutions involve politicians and judges: and if they are purged, nobody can do anything. If in Libya the new government wants to exclude those who had connections with Muammar Gaddafi, who actually remains?

The other model is the French Revolution, with the magnificent eruption of people, even if they are disorderly, where the square itself created the revolutionary process. Then we can turn to the American version, with a document that begins with the people and the necessity to create a new political order, settle down and obey these new rules.

In the picture: Roger Owen