In the triangle that includes Kofi Annan, the Syrian regime and the Syrian opposition, the picture appears extremely complex and unripe. Each side is demanding from the other side something that it cannot provide or refuses to. It is as if we are facing a situation that is still not ready for mediation, and this is cause for concern, concern that we may be facing more killing and atrocities. Each party appears strong and weak simultaneously. One may say that Annan is strong because he carries a mandate from the international community, and because the majority of countries in the Arab world and the world at large refuse for the horrific scenes in Syria to continue, and condemn what the regime's army has been committing. Annan is also strong because he bases his mission on a statement by the Security Council that reflects a desire by its Member States to speak with one voice. However, this desire does not rise to the level of firm will, or a unified vision for how to end the crisis in Syria. Annan will seek to invest this international will, but he knows that his ability to continue to invoke it ultimately requires him to maintain and deepen it, and remove the pitfalls of the ambiguities inherent in it. Annan does not need to be reminded that his mission is based on a statement, seeing as it was not possible to issue a resolution, more than once. It is his duty to recall that Russia and China had wielded the veto to prevent Arab and Western countries from securing a decisive mandate from the Security Council. For this reason, Annan appears both strong and weak, especially that the facts on the ground are not final or decisive. The Syrian regime appears both strong and weak at the same time. It is strong because a yearlong crisis has shown firmly that there is no appetite for foreign military intervention to overthrow the regime. Barack Obama is not interested at all in getting involved in a new war and NATO rushed to state that it is not in the process of repeating the Libyan scenario. Turkey, Syria's neighbor, sounds warnings but is in reality unprepared to take risks in the absence of an unequivocal international resolution. But such an international resolution is not possible because of the stances of both Moscow and Beijing. The regime is strong because its military and security machine has not been hit by any fatal cracks. Yet the regime is also weak because it has used its war machine for a whole year without succeeding in putting down the uprising. This is not to mention the magnitude of the damage affecting the image of the regime, its army and security arsenal. The Syrian opposition appears both weak and strong. It is weak because it has not succeeded in causing significant splits in the regime's military or diplomatic corps, and because it has so far been unable to ignite protests in Damascus despite signs of this recently emerging. The opposition seems also weak because despite what it achieved in Istanbul, it continues to suffer from an inconsistent performance. But the opposition appears strong on the other hand. Some towns, which have been exhausted by the army's repeated incursions, rush to stage protests as soon as the army moves away. Despite the fact that ten thousand casualties have been claimed by the crisis, the opposition is still able to protest and raise its voice high. The opposition is also strong because it has shown that its actual wager will in the end be on those who flock to the public squares, and not on military intervention, and because what happened in the protest scenes has shown that the ruling party has lost the people there and has lost its roots. Annan is asking the Syrian regime something that it cannot offer, i.e. ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy military pieces, in tandem with allowing foreign journalists in and peaceful protests to be held. The authorities were not able to provide this before tens of thousands of people were killed, so how can they do that now? In parallel, Annan is asking the opposition for a ceasefire and for them to participate in dialogue without guaranteeing that the beginning of dialogue will be the beginning of a transitional period. The regime is asking Annan to bring written pledges by the opposition for ceasefire, which is in other words an acknowledgment of defeat and responsibility for what has happened. The opposition is asking Annan for a guarantee that the upcoming phase will be one that organizes the departure of the regime, which is something he cannot deliver. It will not be a surprise if the upcoming phase witnessed severe and bitter maneuvers then. Annan's mission actually means that the regime that existed before the outbreak of the crisis is no longer tolerable. There is an international will to at least force the regime into pluralistic rule. There are those who believe that Annan's mission goes beyond reform to gradual dismantlement of the regime. However, such a task certainly requires Russian approval and a more painful and dangerous situation on the ground.
