It is politically naive to imagine that the Arab League’s roadmap for peace in Syria would be implemented immediately, with no modifications. The offer, after all, was frowned upon by many in both the Syrian government and opposition, despite all the public praise.
Many in Damascus believe that the peace plan was created by the Qataris and ‘sugar-coated’ by the Arab League to make it attractive to the Syrians. Accepting it in its entirety is impossible because that would trigger massive demonstrations of the kind the Syrian regime has been trying hard to prevent.
Rejecting the plan, or breaching it, will damage Syria’s standing in the Arab League and almost certainly result in the League’s Ministerial Committee referring the matter to the UN Security Council. Internationalising the crisis will eventually lead to foreign intervention — a no-fly zone, and perhaps, at the end of a very long tunnel — a Nato attack. Accepting the plan as it stands is political suicide for Bashar Al Assad’s regime, but so is snubbing the League’s initiative altogether.
Contrary to popular belief, Syrian officialdom, or at least part of it, is not trying to shoot down the League initiative altogether. There are two kinds of people in Syria; moderates who realise how grave the situation is and want the regime to survive, even with drastic modifications, and others who realise that any survival would be at their own expense. Those who want to survive feel that the League did not do them justice, because it failed to mention what enforcement measures it would impose on armed groups in different Syrian cities. Those armed groups, authorities insist, have been killing army officers, soldiers, security personnel, and ordinary Syrians.
This is especially the case in Homs, a city in the Syrian midland. A ceasefire needs to be mutually abiding, they add, realising that the League is completely incapable of getting these groups to lay down their arms. They also insist that the death toll reported on Arab satellite channels is incorrect.
In two weeks’ time, League observers will come to Damascus to see for themselves what is happening in Syria. Until that happens after the League holds an urgent meeting on Syria next Saturday, Damascus says that it is upholding its commitments to the initiative, starting to withdraw armed troops and replacing them with riot police affiliated with the Ministry of Interior.
Foreign journalists have started to come to Syria, including The Independent’s celebrated Robert Fisk, and others will be allowed in right after the Eid holidays. A new Syrian Constitution, one that ends the Baath party’s monopoly over power, will probably see the light way before its February 2012 deadline.
Syrian officials believe, however, that what is happening is not a battle to reform the regime, but rather, to bring it down altogether. Syria is different from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia because unlike them, Damascus enjoys the unwavering support of heavyweight international players like Russia, China, South Africa, India, Iran, and Arab states like Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and the UAE.
With such an assortment of allies, they believe that no UN Resolution will pass even if the League takes the matter to the Security Council, and Syria’s membership in the League will not be suspended because there is no Arab consensus.
What makes the Syrian case different, authorities believe, is Syria’s geographical standing, the threats of civil war, its proximity to Israel, and its relationship with non-state players like Hezbollah. Additionally, the Syrian army remains united despite some junior-level defections, the state is still functioning, foreign diplomats are still accredited to Damascus, Syrian officials are still travelling abroad to meet allies, and Al Assad has a strong power base on the Syrian street.
Although the opposition street is adamant that they will accept nothing but regime change, they still don’t see a mechanism for how this can be done. A coup d’etat, as many in the opposition hoped for, has not happened. A Nato attack, the EU is saying time and again, will also not happen. The state is much stronger than they imagined and will not relinquish power that easily. Anybody who believes that Al Assad will step down simply does not understand how Syrian politics works. The Egyptian revolution might have inspired young Syrians, but it also gave them a grand illusion, that the same could be done in Syria, swiftly and smoothly. The truth is that regimes do not fall in 18 days; Hosni Mubarak was an exception. The League has realised that as well, and that is why it has not called for Al Assad to step down, but rather, banked on him to lead the change in Syria. That needs to be done through dialogue and painful concessions, from both the street and government.
Sami Moubayed is a university professor, historian, and editor-in-chief of Forward magazine in Syria.
