Me: Hey John. Thanks for agreeing to the interview. Let’s get started by talking about your trip to Syria. How was it that you landed there?
John: I was on assignment with the Middle East chief of the Guardian newspaper. I was there for about 2 and a half months, which was two months too long.
Me: What did you do in Syria? Did you have a specific assignment?
John: I was there to report on the ongoing conflict. I was living with the rebel army and reported on the smuggling of weapons from Turkey. The first time we were sent in, we went to find defectors from the Syrian government’s Secret Service to confirm that it was the Assad regime conducting bombings on the villages.
Me: Interesting. Which city did you stay in, and what was it like on the ground there? Especially considering you being a foreign journalist.
John: It was too dangerous for the rebels to stay in the city. We would stay in the mountains above the city, and come down to attack the regime. The mountains provided a defensive position for the rebels because the army couldn’t bring armour into the mountains, as they would get ambushed on the way in. But they would send helicopters, and would shoot rockets into the villages and camps all day long. If you were caught on the low lands, you were in big trouble because the regime had armoured all kinds of stuff there. So you could say the mountain provided a degree of safety. You always have to move though. You couldn’t stay in one place too long, especially if you are a journalist. If they caught wind of a journalist’s presence, they would topple the whole village.
Me: What did you learn from this experience? What was your takeaway? People always talk about being in situations such as yours, and finding the experience eye opening.
John: It always is. For me, it re-cemented the fact that things are not binary. We understand these conflicts and regional politics in a very binary fashion, and that’s just not the way it goes. That’s not the way of the world. This brought into focus how seriously and dangerously flawed our media is in North America. What was being reported and written about the conflict, was done by guys in Toronto, Ottawa or London, and who never set foot in Syria. They were regurgitating a lot of information that was not necessarily true.
Me: How well do you think the mainstream media has reported on the ongoing conflict in Syria? Do you think they give the conflict enough attention?
John: Western mainstream media is not journalism- it’s a business. There is no commitment to journalism when they are running taglines like unconfirmed videos or activist reports. Unconfirmed and journalism have never gone hand and hand. A problem I had there, was I would be in a city that would have a television or a radio signal, and I would watch these reports and it just would not coincide with what the reality on the ground was. For example the regime was claiming that there were bombings by Al-Qaeda in Damascus. We went and investigated, and it was not true. I never met any Al-Qaeda members. I met farmers, barbers, teachers, mailmen and police officers who had enough of being oppressed. What was being reported was not matching what I was seeing. I understand I was not covering the whole conflict. That’s impossible. But what they were talking about was not what I was seeing on the ground.
Me: What do you think is going to happen? What does the future of Syria look like now?
John: Different forces want to protect their interests. For example, I believe there are Russian troops on the ground guarding the Port of Tartus because it’s their only port on the Mediterranean. The chances are that it will spiral out of control into a regional war are very high right now. It is why everyone is keeping tabs on Syria. No one knows what is going to happen. There are spooks all over the place there. I have seen them with my own eyes. I saw Qatari Special Forces and Saudi Arabian Special Forces on the border of Turkey.
Me: So like troops?
John: Not troops, but spooks. Like the CIA and other spies.
Me: The media seems to constantly be talking about how to deal with Syria, and asking if an intervention is in order. Is intervention from Western powers advisable?
John: There should have been intervention a long time ago. Now, the civilian casualty rate has risen to 93% of all casualties, and that number says it all. My interest is in the price the civilians are paying. It is not a discourse in the public right now, and it should be. We are talking about 5000 Americans dying in Iraq. Well how many Iraqi civilians died? Does anyone know the answer to that? Couple hundred thousand? Same thing with Afghanistan. We are talking about our highway of heroes and our casualty rates, but nobody talks about those killed in Pakistan. Or how many families in Afghanistan were killed? We are not talking about this, but we should be. We are being sold this precision neutered war, and the only thing it is precise at, is not killing other soldiers. What it certainly is good at, is killing other civilians. My interest is in making sure we understand the impact on civilians, and what it looks like. I don’t know how much impact my work has. I’m just trying to do my part.
Usman Zahid conducted this interview, he is a King's student, in his 4th year in Economics.
