The recent fracture of the relationship between the Syrian government and both the Administration and European governments is by no means superficial. Nor is the shakiness of the regime in Damascus at all minor or temporary. What happened in Syria in the past few weeks sealed the fate of the type of relations that had been carefully woven by the Syrian government. What happened exposed the regime whose priority was never reform but in fact to stay in power with authoritarianism under any circumstances. It is an existentialist matter for those who have grown accustomed to being in power and have been raised around it. This is why it is difficult for them to implement promises of reform. They are forced to choose either to comply with the demands of the reformers “pocket and ask for more”- a risky bargain when this time they are on the giving side. Or they have to opt for what traditionally calls for decisive action, repression, intimidation and the use of every force to “break” those who dared raise their heads and make demands. Whether as a result of a spontaneous consent or deep division in the ranks of senior officials of the Syrian regime, the decision has been made for the second option, and it will not be easy to backtrack. This in turn means postponing whatever President Bashar al-Assad may have had in mind when he was portrayed by the political and PR machine as a “man of reform.” The rumbling of the tanks has risen to mute the voices of civilian protesters, and it makes it no longer possible for countries and individuals who sympathize with the Assad regime or admire him and his wife Asmaa to turn a deaf ear – except for some in Russia, China and Lebanon. As for American-Syrian and European-Syrian relations, these have entered a new juncture that will prove costly for the regime in Damascus, not just economically in case serious sanctions are imposed, but also morally and politically. This is because Damascus has placed its relationship with the United States at the top of its priorities and made good use of its relationship with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in order to reap great benefits for itself in Lebanon and to avoid isolation and accountability But today, those who are holding the Syrian regime to account are the Syrian people who have the right to hold their government accountable like any other people in any given country. The Syrian government is wagering on international and regional powerlessness. But in fact, it is taking a risk by making such a wager. It would have made a better choice had it wagered instead on partnership with the Syrian people to create radical change in their relationship and on a lucid interpretation of the regional situation. Had it done so, the regime would have understood that the change in the regional map was perhaps an opportunity for it to rearrange its scattered interferences and alliances, stretching from Iran to Iraq to Lebanon. But Damascus, once again, is playing its “cards” with excess, and is behaving with both panic and arrogance. Damascus is perhaps wagering on the unwillingness of Western nations to open a new front in Syria similar to Libya's where NATO is carrying out air strikes- and it is right in making such an assumption. However, Europe, the United States and many countries in the world will not remain silent and stand idly by while the repression of civilians continues, casualties increase, hundreds of people are thrown in jail and the world is prevented from seeing what is happening. For these countries, it will not be sufficient to issue condemnations and denouncements. They will be forced to take “measures” to isolate the Syrian regime and to impose sanctions. In fact, those countries themselves are monitored by NGOs like Amnesty International, which demands the prosecution of those who violate human rights laws, or Human Rights Watch, which holds to account governments that bury their heads in the sand and pretend to see or hear no evil. There are many NGOs investigating and getting ready to hold to account countries that give regimes a free pass to commit crimes against their people. Today, there is the principle of the “responsibility to protect” people who fall victim to their governments. Libya has set an important precedent in putting such a principle to work. Yet there is also the wager made by the Syrian regime, along with it China and Russia, on the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) refraining from referring Syria to the Security Council, as they previously did in the case of Libya. China, and with it India and Russia, supports a regional initiative on the Syrian issue, while it has strongly opposed placing the events in Syria on the Security Council's agenda. These countries have exploited the stance taken by Lebanon – the only Arab member in the Security Council – whose Foreign Minister Ali Shami, instructed Ambassador Nawaf Salam to reject a Security Council statement whose issuing requires unanimity. The three countries pointed to the positions taken by the Gulf Cooperation Council and by the League of Arab States on Libya- positions not taken on the issue of Syria. In this vein, China underscored the role played by the Gulf Cooperation Council in Yemen and to the fact that the Security Council has been waiting for the outcome of its initiative. Chinese diplomacy also spoke of potential efforts and attempts to launch a regional initiative on the Syrian issue in hopes that it will produce results. This might have been perfectly alright had the Gulf Cooperation Council been prepared to be decisive over the issue of Syria the way it has acted decisively on Libya and Yemen. This would have been perhaps an opportunity to radically reform Syria's relationship with its Arab environment given that the circumstances in which the regime in Damascus finds itself may be a catalyst for rethinking the Syrian regime's traditional strategy for decades – the strategy of playing the Iranian card in the Gulf, in Iraq, in Palestine or in Lebanon. An initiative such as this would be of great help in defining a new regional order- one that would be less charged with tension- provided that the Syrian regime becomes convinced that it would be better off and better for Syria to focus exclusively on serious, extraordinary and quick domestic reform. Syria also must put a stop to its traditional policy of interfering in neighboring countries through militias or through alliances with Iran as a card in its relations with the Gulf and to bargain with international actors. The events in Syria have reduced the space of bargaining. The leadership in Damascus would be better off if it acts realistically and rationally and calculates intelligently, without arrogance and obstinacy. Even the Sect will place its long-term interests and survival above the Family in times of change such as the Arab World is undergoing today. And that is something that is important to pay heed to, especially at the level of the military institution. Perhaps President Bashar Al-Assad is arming himself with Russian and Chinese support and with the fact that they are providing him with some measure of impunity. India– the homeland of democracy in the Third World – is perhaps also sending obscure messages that might encourage the regime in Damascus to believe that it will be able to overcome popular and international pressure and come out miraculously unscathed. Perhaps the Syrian President compares arming himself with the support he enjoys from the likes of Russia and China to how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arms himself with the absolute support the United States affords to Israel without any accountability. And perhaps he is wagering on some kind of trade-off within such a framework, knowing that Netanyahu is now ready to play the game of the tracks, i.e. to pretend to revive the Syrian-Israeli track of negotiations with the aim of blocking the path of the Palestinian-Israeli track towards making peace. The race is on: Netanyahu wants to preempt any parameters by Barack Obama on the Palestinian issue in order to block an American initiative that would force him to accept the two-state solution as envisioned by the United States, Europe and the rest of the international community. Netanyahu also wants to mobilize the Obama Administration in order to thwart the Obama's promise of Palestine becoming a member of the United Nations by next September. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is moving on the basis of having lost hope in American promises. This is why he said, “We went up the tree together with American President but he came down the tree and took down the ladder too”. The Israeli press revealed that the Obama Administration has threatened to withhold aid to the Palestinian Authority if it insists on heading to the United Nations by gathering the support of more than 150 countries for recognizing the State of Palestine as a UN member. It also revealed that Israeli President Shimon Peres informed Barack Obama that there was no intention to stop Israeli settlement-building, knowing well that Obama had made this issue a priority on which he failed to deliver which lead to the failure of a broader movement for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Today, Netanyahu is using the reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas as an opportunity to escalate against the Palestinian Authority. He considers it to be in his interest to revive the Syrian track despite the fact that this track remains crippled by Damascus's refusal to break its ties with Iran, put a stop to its alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon and cease its complete support of armed Palestinian factions, considered by Damascus to be resistance by proxy. Israel is moving on the American scene, with the Congress, the Administration and the media, in order to relieve pressure on the Syrian government on the basis of the “the devil we know” and on the basis that the alternative would be the Islamists – which in turn is a common denominator between Syrian and Israeli claims. But what is taking place on the Syrian arena between the regime and the people is beyond Israel's control, which explains the worry. There is also the Hezbollah element, in light of developments in Syria and reports of its involvement in the repressive containment of protesters. This is not to mention the official accusation directed by Barack Obama against Bashar Al-Assad of making use of Iran's assistance to stifle his people's uprising. Benyamin Netanyahu may not be concerned with this aspect of developments, but the interests of the United States and of Europe require different considerations. That is why it would be wise for the Syrian regime to pay heed to such differences instead of assuming that it is business as usual Something extraordinary has taken place on the Syrian scene as well as at the level of international relations with Syria- be it the United States, Europe, China, Russia, Israel, Turkey or the Arab World. After the uprising, the regime in Damascus is neither the same nor does it have the same options. Its options are limited: either the model of the Libyan regime and the fate that awaits Muammar Gaddafi; or the model of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh who bargained to secure a fate different to that of Muammar Gaddafi or former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his family or that of runaway Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali and his family. Nations now come before families, as the extraordinary Arab uprising has made clear. The regime in Syria is now damaged, fractured and destabilized, and the time has come to make the wise choice before it is too late.
