On the eve of the beginning of demonstrations in Syrian cities and the bloody response to them over the last eight months, the news about Syria was talking about the beginning of a new era of openness to the world, or an opening by the world toward Syria. The United States announced in February 2010 that it was sending an ambassador to Damascus, after a boycott that began in 2006, due to the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri the year before. It then sent the veteran ambassador Robert Ford, and recently pulled him out after an attack against him, in fear for his life. I was trying to re-organize the news, reports and analyses on Syria that I had gathered, and after there was no more room left in my office. I found myself immersed in reading items from last year and comparing them to developments month by month in 2010, as violence has swept the country. The year started out well, despite the efforts by Israel and the American Zionist media, and the second and third months of the year reflected America's desire for openness toward Syria. When Israel claimed in April that Syria supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles, the Syrians denied it, along with the then-Lebanese prime minister, Saad al-Hariri. Amid this climate of openness, the American press began to expect negotiations with Israel, and publish reports on the areas of dispute. I read about the village of Ghajar in The Christian Science Monitor and about the Wazzani River area in The New York Times. Before the end of May, al-Hariri visited Washington and met President Obama, and asked for more US military assistance for Lebanon, and denied once again that Syria had supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles. On 25 May 2010, The Los Angeles Times ran an article on his policies and the objectives of his visit to Washington. These days, al-Hariri is accusing Syria of everything he had denied a year ago. At the same time in Damascus, President Bashar Assad was receiving the then-French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner; the government of Nicholas Sarkozy also decided to open up to Syria, and try to distance Assad from his alliance with Iran. There were negative developments in June and July. There was the news of thousands of "disappeared" in Syria, and this issue returned forcefully with the violence used against Syrian protestors. There was the news about Syria's support for Hezbollah by providing it with advanced missiles, while Human Rights Watch selected the tenth anniversary of Assad as president to harshly criticize his government's human rights record. Nonetheless, the western media welcomed Syria's ban on the niqab in universities, while former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and the young leader Muqtada Sadr visited Damascus and exchanged pleasantries with each other, and with Syrian leaders. When we recall how bad relations between Turkey and Syria are today, we can realize the extent of the political losses for the regime if we compare the situation to one year ago. The New York Times ran an article "Syrians' New Ardor for a Turkey Looking Eastward," which talked about the romance between the two countries. I even read about their efforts to protect an amphibious bird called the ibis. Even worse than the setback in the relationship with Turkey was the deterioration of relations with Saudi Arabia, after Damascus and Riyadh repaired the rupture in ties in July 2010. King Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz and Assad visited Lebanon together, to end the tension between Hizbullah and the Lebanese government, because of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, formed to investigate the Hariri assassination. Afterward, King Abdullah visited Jordan and declared, with King Abdullah II, his support for the stability of Lebanon. Today, the Saudi media is reflecting the extent of the dispute that has returned. In September of last year, Saad Hariri declared Syria innocent of the killing of his father on 14 February 2005, and said the accusation of Damascus' involvement was "political," and that he had made mistakes by accusing Syria. Today, he accuses the Syrian regime of being responsible for all of Lebanon's problems. In November 2010, the Obama administration believed that Assad's government would help push the Middle East peace process forward. I read in The Huffington Post that Syria was central to the peace process, while the pro-Likud Wall Street Journal ran a report on the topic, with a photo of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem. Today, the Obama administration is demanding that the Syrian president leave. All of last year's achievements have been squandered this year and Syria has returned to isolation, boycott and sanctions, with open calls inside and outside the country for the regime to go. I no longer know if President Assad is aware of the magnitude of his losses in only eight months, whether he can perform a miracle to save his people and his regime, or if Syria will head on the road of blood and tears toward the unknown. [email protected]
