Some members of the Syrian opposition are trying to push the crisis in the country onto the international agenda, while others insist it should be solved within an Arab framework, writes Bassel Oudat in Damascus Over recent days, there has been an increasing difference of opinion between the Syrian opposition inside and outside the country over whether the crisis in Syria should be made an international issue or whether it should be solved within an Arab framework. The National Syrian Council (NSC), based outside the country, has called for the protection of civilians, possibly through foreign intervention, while the Coordination Association of the Forces for Democratic Change (CAFDC), inside Syria, has also called for their protection but rejected any outside intervention. According to the NSC, the Arab League initiative to resolve the crisis has reached a dead end, and calls for the suspension of Syria from the regional organisation is just a step towards referring the issue to the UN Security Council. The NSC advocates the protection of civilians in the country by all legitimate means under international law, some NSC members even suggesting international military intervention against Syria including isolating some regions and imposing a no-fly zone over the country. The NSC has also proposed arming members of the Free Syrian Army who have defected from the state army. For its part, the CAFDC argues that internationalising the Syrian crisis by referring the country to the Security Council is likely to fail, since Russia and China have threatened to use their veto to block action on the matter. Members of the country's domestic opposition advocate support for the Arab initiative, calling on the Arab League to impose sanctions against Syria and send observers to document human rights violations carried out by the regime. The League should press for the media, human rights groups and humanitarian relief agencies to enter Syria and carry out their work without restrictions, the CAFDC has said, reiterating its rejection of foreign military intervention in Syria. Hassan Abdel-Azim, coordinator of the CAFDC, which includes 15 opposition parties, explained the main differences between the NSC and his organisation. "There are patriotic forces and figures in both organisations, and we do not question their patriotism or their advocacy of democratic change, an end to tyranny and the building of a plural nationalist regime that would guarantee the rotation of power," Abdel-Azim told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Despite our differences, we are both working to avoid sectarian dangers and foreign military intervention. Those who advocate foreign military intervention or arming and militarising the uprising have nothing to do with us, and they are unwelcome on the streets of revolution." After a meeting with Arab League Secretary-General Nabil El-Arabi, Abdel-Azim said that the CAFDC rejected calls for imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, describing this as "throwing the doors wide open for foreign intervention, which would destroy Syria, as was the case in Libya. The people would pay the price for this and not the toppled regime." Instead, Abdel-Azim advocated "putting the regime under siege through more Arab, regional and international pressure from the Arab League, the UN, and Arab and regional human rights groups, while leaving the toppling of the regime to the peaceful demonstrators who are more than capable of dismantling it and establishing a pluralist state with the rotation of power." However, for its part the NSC has called for "international protection" to be enforced for civilians in Syria, calling on the UN and Arab and international organisations to assist in securing the safe passage of civilians away from areas under shelling and destruction. It has also called for the immediate dispatch of Arab and international monitors to Syria. Leading NSC figures say that making the Syrian crisis into an international issue "has become an urgent matter," now that the death toll in the crisis has reached the thousands, detainee numbers are in the tens of thousands, and the Syrian army has used heavy artillery, including helicopters, against the demonstrators. The crisis "has gone beyond the boundaries of the country," they say, and the Syrian people "need to be saved from further bloodshed." Hardline opposition figures have called for foreign military intervention in Syria, including Abdel-Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice-president, who has urged the international community to intervene militarily to end the violence exercised by the regime against the people. Khaddam has described the Syrian military as being "an occupation army" and argued that "asking for foreign assistance is a patriotic duty, as well as a moral and religious obligation." For its part, the Arab League has deferred the possibility of foreign intervention by deciding at an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers on Saturday to strike a balance between the demands of the opposition camps. A majority vote at the meeting suspended Syrian participation in Arab League meetings from 16 November, until the country implements the Arab League peace initiative, withdraws the army and security forces from Syrian cities and stops killing and brutalising civilian detainees. The League also called for the release of tens of thousands of political detainees in Syria, saying that this was necessary before dialogue between the regime and the opposition could take place. The League called on Arab countries to withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus and urged the Syrian army not to carry out orders to kill civilians. It also threatened economic and political sanctions against Syria, announcing that meetings would be held with Syrian opposition groups to discuss the transitional phase. The Syrian regime's failure to implement the provisions of the Arab peace initiative, though it had agreed to them, has increased its international isolation and distanced it from Arab states. The approval by 18 member states of the Arab League of the measures to be taken against Syria, with only two abstentions, is an indicator of the depth of feeling between Syria and other Arab states. Several European countries and the US welcomed the Arab League decisions, calling on Arab and western countries to step up the pressure on the Syrian regime and for further political, economic and diplomatic pressure to be put on Damascus. Observers say that the Arab League's decision to suspend Syrian membership of the organisation could be the beginning of an escalation in the crisis. According to Nasser Al-Ghazali, director of the Damascus Centre for Theoretical Studies and Civil Rights, the Arab decision "will boost the determination of the revolutionaries to achieve their demands for freedom and dignity. It will re-energise the revolutionaries to continue their revolution." Commenting on the regime's response, al-Ghazali said that "the regime will try to escalate matters and step up the killings and violations of human rights. Its actions will force foreign intervention, and if the regime continues its policies and does not implement the Arab initiative the result will be civil war that could escalate into a regional war." Bashar Eissa, an opposition figure living in France, told the Weekly that there was a strong probability the Syrian crisis would now be further internationalised. "There is no way to get rid of this regime and make the transition to democracy except through the victory of the people's revolution. This requires a transitional programme to be presented to the international community, which should include a political vision and a deterrent international force that can dismantle regime institutions." "The regime will have to be forced into a peaceful transfer of power, in order to avoid more deaths in Syria or the collapse of the institutions of the state." Meanwhile, the Syrian state-owned media launched an attack on the US and some Arab countries, especially Qatar, accusing the US administration of collaborating in the Syrian crisis and inciting Arab states to boycott Syria. Regime figures in Syria described the Arab League as being a "Hebrew League," forgetting the fact that the Baath Party regime in Syria has always prided itself on its pan-Arab doctrine, presenting itself as a pillar of the Arab cause. Syria's ambassador in Cairo and its representative to the Arab League described the League's decisions as "not worth the paper they are written on," claiming that Syria would not be "deterred by the decisions in the least." However, the leadership in Damascus called for an emergency Arab summit to be held to discuss the crisis, Arab diplomats commenting that it was unlikely that such a summit would take place, though the League's ministerial committee was again invited to visit Syria. For the Syrian opposition, international conditions are not conducive to advocating its cause, since Russia and China have said that they will veto attempts to reintroduce the Syrian crisis in the Security Council. Turkey is unlikely to want to intervene alone, and even the US will not want to take the responsibility of launching a military attack against Syria. At the same time, the opposition is also worried that the Syrian issue may be referred to NATO instead of the UN, making military action a decision that the European powers and their US and other allies can take, avoiding Russian and Chinese objections at the UN. Observers fear that any military action taken against the Syrian regime will result in violent reactions in the region, adding that making the Syrian issue an international one could fracture the opposition between supporters of such action and those who believe that this could transform a people's struggle for democratic change into war and violence.
