Call me impatient or call me a skeptic but its seems to me that all the internal and external Syrian opposition meetings and declarations are generating a lot of heat and very little light. How exactly is the opposition planning to change the regime?
There seems to be unanimous agreement among the opposition that foreign military intervention is not an option. Besides, the Americans, the only ones capable -and foolish enough- to entertain this possibility, have their hands full next door. No one wants to risk a violent internal change either as it might degenerate into civil strife.
The opposition seems to be confident that a combination of internal and external pressures will eventually topple the regime. Statements have been made over the past year that the regime is only months away from total collapse. That appears to be wishful thinking. By all indications that I can see, the regime appears to be unrepentant and largely unfazed. Instead of opening up the regime appears to be becoming more repressive. Instead of escalating pressure on Bashar and Co., the Americans and Europeans seem to have loosened the noose around his neck. Sure there is the periodic State Department scolding of the regime but nothing like the bluster of the first few months after the Hariri assassination. Bashar has delivered on the issue of border control and the Americans, especially after the Hamas win and the ongoing mess in Iraq, would now rather have stability than democracy. Moreover, in the name of Arab harmony and stability, the Egyptians and Saudis are working to defuse some of the international pressure on the Syrian regime. The expectation was that the results of the Hariri investigation would be the straw that would break the regime's back. However, a year after the crime and with the initial investigation bungled and tainted by the Lebanese authorities, the trail is cold. Neither Mehlis nor Brammertz have produced "smoking gun" evidence of complicity by the leadership of the Syrian regime (to paraphrase: absence of proof is by no means proof of innocence).
What about people power? Unless I missed something major, not much seems to be happening. There are the occasional small, timid anti-government demonstrations that are brutally nipped in the bud. The Syrian people are either too cowed by the regime or afraid of what they see happening in Iraq; or the majority are too politically disengaged to care. If there is a simmering population ready to explode, I don't see any evidence of it. Perhaps it is that most members of the opposition -with the exception of the Kurds- do not have large constituencies that can be readily mobilized into the street.
So coming back to my initial question: how do you change a regime non-violently if the regime will not "go gently into the night"? The answer is a bloodless coup, a palace coup, or to use a medical metaphor, a minimally invasive procedure. To achieve such a coup, you have to have friends on the inside. Enter Khaddam. This is perhaps why despite his unsavory past and unconvincing overnight conversion to the lofty ideals of freedom and democracy, the opposition is flocking to him. The man's got a plan; he talks of preparing to drop a "political bomb" and hints of having highly placed individuals in the Syrian armed forces ready to the bidding on his behalf.
Like many Syrians, I do not trust Khaddam but I really don't see anyone else capable of effecting the change that we are looking for. At the same time I fear what he will do the morning after.
(Photo: AK, Muir Woods, California)
