Three years into the Syrian Revolution, the US has announced the retirement of its ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, the man who played a major role in coordinating ties between the Syrian opposition and its Western and Arab backers. In Syrian opposition circles, the reaction has been mixed. Those who blamed Ford for the current impasse were optimistic that things may now improve. Those who had a good rapport with him were sad to see him leave. Larry Silverman, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, has been named as Ford's temporary replacement, pending the nomination of a long-term envoy. Speculation is rife in opposition circles about the significance of the move. If Ford's replacement is a heavyweight, this may indicate that the US will bring its full weight to bear on the crisis. Since the eruption of the Syrian Revolution three years ago, Ford has taken the side of the protesters. He has visited the families of activists killed by the regime's forces, participated in a march attended by half a million people in Hama, supported peaceful activists, and criticised the Syrian regime. After leaving Damascus for security reasons, Ford continued to shuttle between the US and Turkey, working closely with the Syrian opposition groups and consulting regularly with the leaders of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF). Ford has also had strong opinions about who deserves backing and who doesn't. No wonder not all opposition groups have been fond of him. Haytham Manna, president of the expatriate branch of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC), described Ford as “Syria's Bremer,” referring to Paul Bremer who was Iraq's de facto ruler in the aftermath of the 2003 US-led invasion. Other opposition forces criticised Ford for what they perceived as his excessive interference in the naming of the opposition delegation to the recent Geneva II Conference. His haughty manner towards top NCSROF leaders had also been noted. A spokesman for the NCCDC in Syria said that the replacement of Ford may be a good thing for Syria. NCCDC spokesman Munzir Khaddam said that Ford was “America's main point man in Syria,” but that he didn't always have Syrian interests in mind. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Khaddam said that rather than promoting the interests of Syria, the US envoy had been helping Israel. “Ford was never interested in resolving the Syrian crisis, but in fanning the flames and managing it, so it wouldn't spill outside the country's borders. He was not just implementing US policy, but was also one of its architects.” “However, all he wanted was to promote Israel's interests. He wasn't interested in deposing [Syrian President Bashar] Al-Assad... or in bringing real democracy to the country. What he wanted was to destroy Syria and make sure that it was no longer a power to be reckoned with in the region. In this, he has succeeded.” Khaddam believes that on Ford's watch, the Syrian crisis has got out of hand, spilling into neighbouring countries. “Syria has become a hotbed for terrorists,” Khaddam stated. “Western countries are concerned over the terror that is now coming from Syria. The US, meanwhile is refusing to arm the opposition. Turkey and Qatar are shifting their positions, attempting to open a channel of communication with the Syrian authorities through Iran. Laws have been passed in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries recriminating jihad in Syria. Egypt is also changing its position,” he commented. Khaddam hoped that the appointment of a new US envoy to Syria would improve America's relations with the country's various opposition groups, including the NCCDC. However, Eqab Yahya, a member of the NCCDC political bureau, disagreed. Speaking to the Weekly, Yahya said that the drawbacks of US policies in Syria had nothing to do with Ford, but everything to do with the US administration. “Ford or any other emissary is only a representative of his government. Regardless of personal traits, what he does is carry out the strategy and decisions of the US administration,” he said. According to Yahya, the problem with US policies was one of vision, not emissaries. Yahya would like Washington to put more pressure on Damascus and Moscow to bring about a satisfactory solution to the current deadlock. “The US needs to regain what remains of its credibility with the Syrian revolutionaries and their friends. [It must] change the current policies and do something about the criminal regime and its allies in Russia.” The current crisis, observers believe, is likely to continue until a major shift happens abroad or at home. Either the international community brings more pressure to bear on Damascus and its allies, or the opposition unites and puts more military pressure on the regime. For the time being, the Syrian regime is determined to block any political solution leading to its demise. As long as it continues to receive unlimited backing from its allies in Iran and Russia, its position is unlikely to change. At Geneva II, the opposition demanded the formation of an interim authority with full powers, a demand that was in line with the final statement of the earlier Geneva I Conference. But the regime objected, offering nothing but cursory reforms while claiming that it was not suppressing a revolution, but fighting off “terrorists.” As the crisis in Syria continues to escalate with every prospect of its spilling into neighbouring nations, there is a need for a more assertive position by Washington – something many hope will come with the new emissary. Meanwhile, the opposition is starting to take steps towards closing its ranks. The Syrian Free Army is said to be restructuring its forces, and various opposition groups have indicated their willingness to set aside their differences in a common bid to remove the regime.
