It seems that the time has come for Damascus to open fire against UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and also against the international initiative that Kofi Annan was appointed to undertake, on behalf of the Arab group and the UN. The Syrian government had reluctantly accepted that initiative with the hope of buying more time in order to eliminate the opposition. Since the passing of Annan's plan and the unanimous vote on international resolutions number 2042 and 2043, the question has been whether the Syrian government will be able to cope with the terms of these two resolutions. These terms put Damascus in the position of the accused from several angles. Indeed, Damascus was required to cease fire, pull heavy weapons and forces out from the arenas where they were deployed, release the prisoners of conscience, allow reporters into Syria and grant them permission to freely cover the events taking place there, and finally agreeing to take the country to another phase, one characterized by pluralism and political participation. Annan's plan, which was supported by the UN, was based on the neutrality of this international organization between the two conflicting sides in Syria. The UN expressed its neutrality by appointing observers to monitor the events on the ground, a major indication to that the UN did not believe the account of the Syrian government. Damascus was upset by the fact that the UN stood in the middle, and failed to adopt the logic of the Syrian cabinet; a logic indicating that the Syrian regime is being faced with “armed terrorist groups” and that the situation in Syria will only be corrected by eliminating these groups. In this context, Syrian officials did not hesitate to compare the events in their country to the “terrorist” attacks that other countries are being subjected to. In other words, Damascus sees no opposition in Syria except for the opposition appointed by the regime. The latter then suggests holding a “dialogue” with that opposition then sends it to the allied capitals to discuss the upcoming “reform” steps. Damascus respecting the clauses of the international plan, and implementing them in a serious and honest manner, should have been the door to a solution of the Syrian crisis, away from military intervention. But honoring these pledges would have practically meant that the UN is now dealing with a different Damascus; one that is not carrying out daily confrontations and practicing daily killings against its citizens to prove that it is right, that it is the “sovereign” party on the ground, and that the protesters are just gangs of outlaws. The other Damascus that the world is aspiring to work with is inexistent and it will never exist, not even in dreams. This is the reason why the UN is now being targeted by the Syrian fire. Through its media, the Syrian government is translating the position of the UN secretary general – which calls on Damascus to carry out its pledges as per the plan that was agreed upon – as being an “encouragement for the terrorists.” But these terrorists are but citizens that participate in protests and get killed. The Al-Thawrah newspaper is wondering about the presence of these citizens and wondering “who let them infiltrate our streets and be among us.” The latest campaign launched by Damascus against the UN is based on that the international organization has disregarded the terrorist explosions in the Syrian cities, and that it has failed to hold the armed groups responsible for them, instead of just focusing on accusing the government. However, like all the Syrian campaigns, this campaign lacks the least amount of credibility. What Ban Ki-moon did was stress that Damascus did not respect the first clause of Annan's plan, which calls on it to pull its forces and heavy weapons from the streets. He also called on the opposition to respect the ceasefire. The reason why Damascus was asked to pull its forces first was to remove the fuse that ignited the Syrian crisis in the first place. Indeed, these forces – which had been practicing oppression and killings since the incidents in Deraa and up until this day – have created the need for the many opposition groups, the confrontations, and the birth of the “terrorist groups”, and perhaps even the radical organizations as an act of self defense. This is only a natural and instinctive right practiced by the animals when they are subjected to a life-threatening attack.
