The decision by France and Britain to arm the Syrian opposition will certainly have consequences on the ground, and protect the Syrian people from the bombing and shelling by the regime's planes and tanks. Since the beginning of his term, French President Francois Hollande has been decisive with the Syrian regime and its brutal acts. He is certainly the only leader whom history will not judge for having tried any openness to Bashar Assad and his regime. All of his predecessors did, from Francois Mitterand, the Socialist who visited Syria under the late Hafez Assad, two years after the assassination of the French ambassador in Lebanon, Louis Delemare. Then came Jacques Chirac, who alone among European leaders attended Assad's funeral and received his son as an heir apparent, and then as president, finally boycotting him after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri. Then there was Nicolas Sarkozy, who received Bashar in his own bombastic fashion on the anniversary of the French Revolution, which salutes the values of freedom, liberty and equality, of which the Syrian regime is ignorant. It is true that Hollande became president after the start of the Syrian uprising and France changed its policy on Syria with the arrival of Alain Juppe at the Foreign Ministry, under Sarkozy. However, since becoming Socialist Party leader, Hollande has been aware that the regime in Syria is repressive and dictatorial and that there is no point in dealing with it. France's decision to arm the opposition will now help speed up getting rid of the regime and pressuring it to change the balance of power on the ground, so that the regime can leave and agree to a political transition. Hollande was at the forefront of western states when he decided to help the opposition, and then recognize the National Coalition, while he coordinated his moves with Britain. The two states managed to influence the Obama administration, which recently agreed to see these weapons reach the opposition, without taking part in supplying them. This was based on the idea that the president had withdrawn from all military conflicts, which shows some weakness and inertia in the American stance. Hollande's decision to get around the European arms embargo on Syria is because the French president realizes that his attempt to convince his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to change his stance has no hope of success. His dialogue with him in Moscow on the topic was very divisive. The other reason is that the Syrian regime continues to use its forces to kill its people and civilians, which is a disaster for the country and its future because the longer the war goes on with the superiority of the Syrian army, the bigger the danger to Syria's future from extremist jihadist. The decision by Hollande and David Cameron is correct and waiting for European consensus on the issue will not help change the balance of power on the ground. Many French officials from Hollande's party and the opposition have not supported his decision. The former conservative prime minister, Francois Fillon, believes the move to be a type of washing one's hands from what is taking place in Syria, and that a better move would be a no-fly zone, and convincing Russia to endorse a Security Council resolution. Fillon said this on the eve of Hollande's meeting with Putin in Moscow and he is completely aware that Putin is totally against abandoning Assad. But Juppe, also a conservative, was blunter in supporting Hollande's decision because he knows that there is no political solution in Syria, as long as the Russian position remains unchanged. He said that many efforts have been made to convince Putin but he has closed himself in on a certain type of logic, which in the end will be a trap for Russia's policy in the region. The war in Syria is destructive for this beautiful country and its people, who have been displaced, and Syria is threatening neighbors, led by Lebanon and Jordan. Meanwhile, Assad continues to do away with his people. Thus, the French decision to arm the opposition should be understood, and saluted, because it is a bold step that could represent a new phase in the war in Syria.
