Eighty three ‘Friends of Syria' met in Istanbul on the first of April. The timing of their meeting was right on the mark, as it could justify any lack of implementation in the future by invoking April Fools' Day. But despite the timing of the meeting, there was a phrase in the final statement which truthfully sums up everything with regard to the situation in Syria in my opinion, which was that “the future of Syria must be decided by the Syrian people”. I hear U.S. official statements, made by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and official spokespersons, saying that Bashar al-Assad must step down. Meanwhile, I hear from the various leaders of the Iranian regime statements that say that “Bashar al-Assad must remain in office”. To both the Americans and the Iranians I want to say ‘No Way'! […]. The Syrian people alone can decide whether Bashar al-Assad should stay or leave, and no one else. Some of the countries that attended the Istanbul meeting really want what is best for Syria and its people. But there is also the United States and Europe, and my confidence in them is limited to nonexistent. The statement said,“The regime will be judged based on actions not words”. This is nice, but it also applies, alongside the regime, to the Americans and Europeans. Indeed, the statement itself speaks of a “last chance” for Assad, and the need to “halt violence immediately”. If I were to judge the West on its actions not words, I would note the fact that the United States, Britain, France and Germany spoke again and again about a ‘last chance', and called time after time for a halt to violence, but did nothing other than demand this, without matching it with any concrete actions that would intimidate the regime and force it to backpedal from the daily killing. I argue that the lack of concrete action is what has made the situation worse. In the beginning, the well-known dissidents in Damascus were meeting with others publicly, and the demands raised by Fayez Sarah, Louay Hussein, Taib Tizini, Aref Dalila and others included plausible reforms with a timetable for gradual implementation aiming at taking Syria towards pluralism, in addition to passing a law on political parties and the rotation of power, with economic and social reforms. But in the absence of any strong international action against the regime, the internal opposition was repressed, and a new constitution emerged that has guaranteed the survival of the regime without any change. Thus, when the Istanbul statement says “the regime has let down the Syrian people at all levels”, I say that this also applies to the Western countries. If we ask who is responsible for the ongoing killing, my answer would be the regime as well as the capable Western and Eastern countries which did not stop the regime, or intimidate it enough to push it to look for solutions other than the failed and devastating security-based approach. The statement recognized the National Council as a representative of the Syrian people. Perhaps the council, with the divisions among its members and the disputes and withdrawals, does truly represent the Syrians, who are divided over the regime. Nonetheless, I estimate that a majority that did not exist in March last year now wants the regime to step down. I had opposed arming the Syrians for fear of more killing, and I noticed that the statement did not mention this issue. So perhaps a majority of the friends of Syria in Istanbul have realized that placing light weapons in the hands of civilians fighting a large and well-armed regular army is not wise at all. Then there is an issue concerning the position of Turkey, which hosted the conference of the so-called friends. Indeed, since the beginning of the uprising against the regime in Damascus, Turkey has been voicing sharp positions against this regime, but without doing anything on the ground. I remembered the Turkish position, which is all words and no deeds, as I was noting that the statement did not mention the ‘buffer zones'. To be sure, this is a measure that the Turkish government can implement as soon as tomorrow, but it chooses not to. Instead, the sharp tone of its statements made during the Turkish elections faded out after that, so were they merely posturing for local considerations? I won't answer this, but I just want to say that with friends like this, Syria does not need enemies.
