In 2007, the Arab League representative in Baghdad Mokhtar Lamani justified his withdrawal from the task assigned to him (which he refuses to call a resignation), in a famous letter that exposes the weakness and the ineffectiveness of the Arab League. In it he described Iraq's domestic situation, as well as its' foreign relations. He also regretted not having been able to do anything for the “Cradle of Civilization". Lamani noted that the ordeal of the Iraqis could be “summed up in an attempt to destroy the cohesion of this beautiful mosaic, which is affected by numerous internal, regional and international factors. Each of these factors has its own complications, made even worse by their interaction with one another". He also noticed the lack of trust between the country's sectarian, confessional and ethnic constituents, and the absence of a national vision that would allow Iraqis to work together in order to save themselves and their country. Lamani said that Iraq's neighborhood was complicated as well, in addition to being a region of “influence representing an economic priority for the world". It is a place that witnesses the intersection “and clash of the concerns and interests pertaining to the region and to major powers". He also added that “the direction in which I can see the interior heading is towards increasingly making use of Iraq, as an arena for a number of battles and numerous parties, which include countries, organizations and movements". He recorded the absence of “any coherent and serious Arab vision in resolving the issue. Instead, there is a complete lack of realization of how necessary such a vision is, both in its political and security aspects, in addition to rebuilding. There is also the fact that some just suffice themselves sometimes with being dragged into patch-up stances on narrow bases that do not fundamentally or necessarily have any bearing on the Iraqi people's higher interest. As soon as he was selected as United Nations and Arab League Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi chose Lamani as his deputy. Just as the Moroccan diplomat did in Baghdad, where he took up residence outside the fortified Green Zone and contacted all Iraqi parties in order to have direct knowledge of the events, he has taken up residence in Damascus and has been contacting all parties in order to form a clear image of what is happening. Yet, neither the United Nations nor the Arab League is taking any heed of him. The UN is internally divided between those who call for military intervention “to save the Syrian people and free it from Assad", just like the Iraqi people were saved and freed from Saddam Hussein, and those who are opposed to any interference. The Arab League, on the other hand, is biased in favor of intervention, and sees no “glimmer of hope" in the success of Brahimi's mission, as its Secretary-General Nabil El-Araby said. It still insists on having a resolution issued by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, allowing it to proceed with a military intervention. The pretext would sometimes be “protecting civilians" and state at other times that “the massacres perpetrated by the regime should ended". The fact is that the situation in Syria is not much different from what it was in Iraq. Syria too is a cradle of civilization, and Damascus the oldest capital still in existence. The Syrian people form an ethnic, sectarian and confessional mosaic. The same mosaic exists in its Turkish neighborhood. International and regional interests there are intertwined and conflicting. The armed opposition has a connection to its sources of military support and funding, which is stronger than its links to the interests of the people. Indeed, it has come to form, over the past two years, a comprehensive economic, political and interest-based cycle. It succeeded in doing so through connecting to foreign powers, with their diversity, and their conflicting and converging interests, becoming thus an alternative to the state. As for the unarmed opposition, it is neither heard by the regime nor consulted by the “Coalition", as there is no place for reason and free thought amid the roar of cannons. Everyone, from the United States to the Arab World, knows that the war in Syria has become a futile one. Neither can the regime achieve decisive victory, nor can the armed fighters topple it. And even if they do, the conflict will begin between their factions and the foreign parties they represent, and they will complete the destruction of what is left of the state and the inhabited areas of the country. Syria will then stop to exist, as US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in his testimony before Congress a few days ago. Lamani's letter of “resignation" from his task in Iraq confirms his profound understanding of the country and of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East as a whole. He behaved in Baghdad as if he were one of its native inhabitants, more fervently concerned about its interests than are politicians, fighters and those who seek power. He wrote that the people “he found in Iraq were threatened at their core, hungry and unsafe". The Syrian people are “threatened, hungry and unsafe". The Arab League, which fell short in Iraq, has become engaged in the war in Syria, which is uncommon for it. Will then Lamani once again bear witness before history and explain the eagerness, collusion of foreign powers and negligence of the opposition and the regime, before resigning? Or will his connection to Brahimi, who has shed the mantle of the Arab League, delay his testimony?
