The Security Council session last Thursday proved what had been expected. The Arab-European alliance leading the “Syrian Revolution” has once again been confronted to the stance taken by Russia, not to mention the “wall” of China and the BRICS countries. The alliance (and the Arab League) has failed to convince Moscow and Beijing to give up their support of the Syrian regime, especially after those taking part in the uprising have turned to the use of arms, in a classic gang war that is no secret to anyone, to be added to the obscurity of their political orientations for what would come after the regime. These orientations are not very reassuring for Moscow, as their features indicate that those at the forefront of working to topple the regime would move Damascus from an allied camp to a competing camp, of which the foreign (and domestic) policies would be an extension of the policies of the collapsed regimes of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen – i.e. would be in the orbit of the American camp, which seeks to surround Moscow from every side with hostile regimes. It is in this sense that Burhan Ghalioun's reassurances that he would preserve its position and its naval base in Tartus were insufficient, because he himself cannot ensure that he would remain in power. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is keeping an eye on him, as on all secularists. It is using him now as a façade to convince the West that it is “civil”, until it seizes power and imposes its own views and laws, in a democratic game the results of which have been tangible in Egypt. That is the basis of the stances taken by Russia and China. As for the stance taken by the United States, and the West in general, it is based on the notion that those taking part in the uprising are neither Leftists nor Nationalists. More importantly, they will strike a blow against the Syrian-Iranian alliance and its extensions in Lebanon and Palestine, and across Iraq. Ensuring that they will be pointed in the right direction are countries and regimes allied to the US that have for years sought to dismantle this axis, relying on US military force at times, and on uprisings at others. And uprisings have a much greater impact than any army. It is on such a background that the confrontation is taking place at the Security Council. And everything that has been and will be said about the United Nations striving to spread democracy and personal and public freedoms in Syria no longer convinces anyone, for many reasons. The most important of those is perhaps the fact that the experience of Iraq has proven that these slogans were illusory. Indeed, either democracy springs from within through social evolution, or the dictatorship of the sacred replaces the dictatorship of the individual. The most recent example of this is what happened and is happening in Libya, which everyone forgot about after they were reassured that the oil would continue to flow, leaving the “rebels” to fight amongst themselves. The caution shown by the two confronting camps at the Security Council and the way they both cling to issuing a resolution that would serve their own interest is sufficient indication to the fact that the tragedy in Syria will be prolonged, and will reap many more victims and expose the country to the danger of division. Then what was required will have been achieved: fragmenting yet another strong Arab country and turning the entire region into sectarian and ethnic microstates, in which would prevail chaos, tribal customs and religious laws, under regional and international sponsorship. Is this not what is happening in Iraq, Syria's neighbor and the country closest to it in terms of social makeup?
