Will the Security Council deal with Al-Assad the same way as it dealt with Gaddafi, asks Graham Usher at the United Nations in New York The apparent failure of the Arab League's peace initiative risks pushing the Syrian crisis onto a new, more dangerous plane. It's now likely that if the Syrian regime fails to end its repression of civilian protests by 24 November (when the Arab Foreign ministers are next due to meet), it will face suspension from the League. It may also face Arab sanctions to augment those already in place from Europe and America. Suspension will return the crisis to the United Nations. Diplomats say while the Arab League plan is the "game in town" for now, most think Syria will be back at the Security Council once it is seen to have failed. One predicts negotiations on a new resolution by the end of the month. That is certainly Bashar Al-Assad's expectation. He told Britain's Sunday Times the real purpose of the Arab League initiative was to license outside international military intervention in Syria. He vowed to fight the "armed gangs" opposing him. Is Syria heading for civil war and outside intervention a la Libya? A Western-led noose is certainly tightening around the regime. On 21 November France, Germany and Britain tabled a resolution before the General Assembly. It called for an end to systematic human rights abuses by the Syrian government and support for the Arab League plan. It was passed on 22 November by 122 votes to 13. Some powers - Russia, China, India and South Africa _ abstained. But most Arab states voted in favor, including the new "revolutionary" countries of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. All knew the vote will increase pressure on the Security Council to again tackle the Syria crisis. But the size of the vote showed just how far the global tide is turning on the 40 year old Assad dynasty. It is no surprise. Since 2 November -- when the Arab League submitted a plan many saw as the last hope for a peaceful resolution of the crisis -- more than 300 people have been killed, making November the bloodiest month of the Syrian uprising. The blood has started to be spread more evenly. There are now guerilla ambushes on the regime in its Damascus stronghold by the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), a rebel militia headquartered in Turkey that claims the loyalty of 15,000 men. In Homs -- whose confessional composition mirrors that of the country -- there are sectarian killings between Sunnis and Alawites. Civil war and armed insurgency are no longer claims used by the regime to smear the rebellion: they are happening. There is a growing sense �ê" in the region and beyond �ê" that neither Assad nor the authoritarian system he fronts can survive this level of confrontation. And as their star dips, the opposition's rises. The Syrian National Council (SNC) -- the largest of Syria's several opposition groups �ê" has met with the Arab League and British and Russian leaders. Apart from Russia -- which urged it to dialogue with the Assad government to avoid "civil war" -- these discussions have not centered on the Arab League initiative. Rather the message from the Arabs and Britain is that the SNC should unite Syria's fractious opposition groups around an agreed, post-Assad transition. Any Syrian suspension from the League will help consecrate the new legitimacy. But what will the Arab League ask for beyond sanctions? On 16 November it and Turkey called for "urgent measures to ensure the protection of civilians" while warning against "all foreign intervention" in Syria. That fine line may prove hard to walk. The SNC and FSA have both called for no-fly and buffer zones on the Turkish-Syrian border to shield civilians and defecting Syrian soldiers. Realistically those zones could only be secured by military action from Turkey, but Ankara says it won't act inside Syria without the authority of a Security Council resolution. It's not clear what action any new resolution would call for. It is clear what the response would be. Two months ago Russia and China vetoed a Council resolution for considering sanctions against Syria. Since then there has been the failure of the Arab League plan and an escalation in the carnage. This may soften Russia and China vis-a-vis some form of UN penalties, as may the General Assembly vote. But neither Moscow or Beijing will tolerate any call for a no-fly zone in Syria, and not only because of their deep military and economic ties to the regime. It was in the name of a no-fly zone approved by the Arab League that Western powers in February marshalled a Security Council vote for military intervention in Libya. Invoked as the "responsibility to protect civilians", that intervention enabled a NATO-led operation to change the Libyan regime. The UN no-fly zone became its enduring legal cover. It is not just Russia and China which fears that the West and certain Arab states may be cooking the same dish for Syria. "If any resolution on Syria is simply Libya revisited, with a no-fly zone and an arms embargo that applies to one side only, then some countries would have serious difficulties supporting it," says one UN watcher. Yet he agrees "something must be done" about Syria. For now he says that something is best left to the Arabs. "I'd rather have the Arab League deal with Syria than have the Western states deal with it in a Libyan way." But what happens if the Arabs have no other formula for Syria except the Libyan way?
