Talk of foreign military intervention to halt the killings in Syria has been rejected by the country's opposition groups and confirmed at the UN, writes Bassel Oudat in Damascus Six months after the beginning of the Syrian uprising demanding change and the country's transition to a democratic state, more than 3,500 people have been killed by the security forces and death squads and an equal number of people are missing, according to the country's opposition groups. Tens of thousands of detainees are suffering in grim detention centres, where torture has become routine. As a result, voices are being raised both inside and outside Syria demanding international protection for the Syrian population against the violence being carried out by the regime. This week's UN Security Council meeting concerning Syria exposed once again international divisions over the months-long crackdown on protests and ended with no resolution at all. Nine countries voted for the call by France, Britain, Germany and Portugal for "targeted measures" if Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad did not end the assault on demonstrators, but Russia and China vetoed it, pointing to NATO's actions in Libya, which it believes went beyond the mandate of the UN Security Council resolutions that authorised them. US ambassador Susan Rice led a rare walkout protest from the Security Council chamber when Syria's UN envoy accused the United States of being a party to "genocide". The Syrian opposition, including groups both inside and outside Syria, disagree about the merits of foreign intervention to end the crisis and what "protection" could mean. One option could be NATO military intervention similar to what took place in Libya, while another could be the creation of so-called "safe havens" close to the Syrian-Turkish border secured by international monitors. A further option could be to step up the international pressure on Assad and further sanctions against the country. For its part, the regime has described anyone calling for international protection of the protesters as "traitors," saying that they will be treated as such by the Syrian authorities. It has launched a media campaign against those advocating the idea of foreign intervention, warning that any assault on Syria would lead to a regional war. The General Authority of the Syrian Revolution (GASR), which represents a number of opposition activists, has accused the regime of carrying out "mass murder" in the country, and in a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon it called for a no-fly zone to be instituted in Syria to protect civilians. However, the GASR, set up in August after activists in the field united their ranks, rejected foreign military intervention on the ground, saying that it would only be prepared to accept a foreign peacekeeping mission and not a military force. Such protection for civilians in Syria would require the international community to shoulder its responsibilities under international law and the UN Charter, the group said. It emphasised that all Syrians rejected any Arab or international military intervention on the ground, however, saying that the most it could accept would be "indirect foreign military intervention". Other opposition groups have said that the protection of civilian should be brought by the opening of the country's borders to international missions and monitors, especially missions by representatives of the Arab countries. The groups said that the genuine protection of Syrian civilians could not come about without the success of the revolution and the establishment of a new state, but they rejected the idea of direct ground-based foreign military intervention to bring this about. At protests in Syria last Friday, dubbed the "Friday of International Protection", there were no calls for foreign military intervention, with observers saying that most Syrians believed that such intervention would not remain limited and that it would inevitably spread to achieve political goals. The Syrian opposition seems to have learned from the lessons of foreign military interventions in Iraq and Libya, where human tragedy and economic, social and political destruction have been left behind. Iran, an ally of the Syrian regime, has also warned against any foreign military intervention in Syria, threatening that this "could have serious repercussions in the region." Syrian protesters have accused Tehran of providing logistical and technical assistance to the Syrian security forces in suppressing the demonstrations, and they point to joint defence and military cooperation agreements between the two countries. Iran's foreign ministry has accused the US of inciting terrorist groups in Syria to carry out sabotage operations "to erase the resistance front" against Israel in the region. What is taking place in Syria, the Iranians say, is an internal Syrian matter that should be settled between the country's people and the government. The Syrian government in the capital Damascus has praised the positions of Russia, China and Iran, adding that the threat of foreign military intervention in Syria and the overthrow of the Assad regime has been reduced by the positions adopted by these countries. It also noted the "positive postures" taken up by some non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, also against any foreign intervention, and it has recently received a delegation from these countries. Most Syrians agree in rejecting any foreign military intervention on the ground in Syria, and for the most part the country's opposition has only been ready to welcome the economic and political sanctions imposed by the US and Europe. While Al-Fawaz said that, "the conditions in Syria have deteriorated beyond redemption and the national crisis is becoming more complicated every day," he nevertheless said that there were no voices calling for the West to intervene militarily. The Coordination Authority for the Forces of Democratic Change (CAFDC), which represents 15 opposition parties and several independent figures, said that it was in favour of the "three Nos:" no to violence; no to military intervention; no to sectarianism. The group insisted that the overthrow of the regime in Syria must come about through a peaceful revolution. However, other opposition figures say that the regime is indifferent to the international sanctions and that these will not result in its overthrow. The belief that the regime can be ousted without foreign military intervention is a delusion, they say, because of the strength of the state's military and security forces. During a recent conference in Damascus, the CAFDC said that the regime could be ousted by peaceful resistance, including public walk-outs, strikes and public disobedience. Former Syrian vice-president Abdel-Halim Khaddam, who lives in exile, has, however, defended the idea of foreign military intervention to overthrow the regime. "Military intervention does not mean occupation," Khaddam said, adding that "the age of colonialism is over: military intervention today means assisting people in getting rid of corrupt oppressive regimes." In an open letter to the Syrian revolutionaries, Khaddam said that "some people are calling for sending international monitors to Syria instead of a military intervention, but this is just to cover up their defeatist positions. International monitors will never remove the regime from power." US ambassador in Damascus Robert Ford has said that the US will not intervene militarily in Syria. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has denied that the alliance intends to intercede in Syria after it accomplishes its mission in Libya, emphasising that NATO's mission in Libya was based on a clear international resolution, "something that is not available for other countries right now," Rasmussen said. Meanwhile, the Syrian people are suffering under more and more pressure, and the number of detainees has risen to the tens of thousands. Nevertheless, the demonstrators are determined to continue their protests, and although the option of foreign military intervention in Syria appears difficult at present, observers wonder if the country's opposition will remain so steadfastly opposed.
