VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

On its latest issue’s cover, The Economist chose a very catchy artwork that portrays the disintegration   of the situation in Syria with the title “Syria, The Death of a Country”.

As a Syrian citizen, it baffles me how The Economist has managed to plainly sentence a country of 23 million people to death, in the 21st century.

It makes me wonder, if someone asks me where I came from, what would I say? I used to come from Syria but now it’s been declared dead by The Economist?

It’s incomprehensible and outrageous for a media outlet to just declare a country ‘dead’. What are the hypotheses The Economist had used to come up with this deduction? What kind of statistics/figures/data did it use to build on such a conclusion?

As far as the world is concerned, the Syrian regime is still up and running, and its killing machine is still operating on full-on power, massacring civilians, attacking rebels, dropping barrels on bread queues, firing SCUD missiles on cities, and besieging towns and cities. Despite the numerous atrocities that have been committed by the Syrian regime and documented by world organisations, it is still internationally recognised as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
This is the same regime that has caused Syrians to seek arms out of despair, and gave some extremist groups the incentive (and implicit approval) to enter Syria and ‘join the battle’. Additionally, the international community is  the same one that is idly standing by, cracking a(n) ‘Assad must step down’ statement every once in a while, and silencing their citizens mouths and consciences through some ‘financial & humanitarian aids’, which are coincidentally handed to the Syrian regime.

It’s become more than obvious that the Syrian Government is leading an unprecedented crackdown on every living creature on Syrian land, and that everyone else is quietly enjoying the spectacle in light of a global moral deterioration.

Thus, when The Economist calls Syria dead, what is it actually referring to? The Syrian people? Because there are millions of Syrians inside and outside Syria who are still alive (barely); and if its concern is the Syrian people, it should be more worried about the extermination of a whole nationality (i.e. a genocide – which is the actual case in Syria).

The Syrian State? Because evidence shows that it is up and running with a groundbreaking spectacle of death that everyone else seems to enjoy. Hence, It’s not the country.

Based on the above mentioned, here are some other suggestions for The Economist’s cover story:

- Syria, the Genocide of the Modern Age
- Syria, the Government we Supported and the Innocent People that Everyone Watched Die
- Syria, the Death of Humanity

I’d pick the last one, because, here is the thing.. after hearing from the international community times and times again that it’s a global responsibility to end the Syrian crisis, and at the same time seeing the world turn its back on innocent people times and times again, and implicitly supporting Assad times and times again; What’s dead is mercy and humanity.
What’s dead is logic.
What’s dead is compassion.

But I will tell you this. Germany did not die. Japan did not die. Russia did not die. USA, and after 4 years of civil war, did not die.

Syria, sure as hell, will not die either.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)