By Press TV
By Mohyeddin Sajedi
Syrian state media news editors-in-chief are going through some tough times.
Most of them wish not to publish any news of the demonstrations and the assault of the armed men on security forces and instead turn to the analysis of the reforms ordered recently by the Syrian President Bashar Assad; the general election and the multi-party laws, for example, which transformed Syria into a plural and multi-dimensional country from political and partisan perspectives.
The Syrian television did not broadcast live the trial of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ousted president, and even official newspapers refrained from reflecting his prosecution; only one newspaper referred to the confrontations between the pro- and anti-Mubarak demonstrators prior to his trial in Cairo.
Glossing over the Mubarak trial is not restricted to Syria; nearly all of the Arabic state televisions evaded live broadcast and delegated the responsibility to unofficial news networks like the Arabic Aljazeera.
Fear of a repeat of the fate of Hosni Mubarak, it seems, has swept sleep from the eyes of many Arab leaders.
According to the multi-party law in Syria, no party can be formed based on the ethnicity, race, religion, faith or color. No party should have a military or paramilitary structure either.
Such restriction practically signifies a review in the structure of the ruling Baath Party in Syria, which was founded on Arab ethnocentrism and enjoys extensive paramilitary organizations across Syria.
If this is a correct definition, then Bashar al-Assad has taken a giant reformation stride, which has been lost in the mutual commotion and bloodshed. The rule of the Baath Party is one of the basic articles of the Syrian Constitution and its change requires the modification of the Constitution, which is a duty of the parliament.
Currently, there is practically no parliament in Syria and no specific time has been determined for the formation of a new parliament. The paradox is an example of the slow implementation of reforms.
The ratification of new reform laws in Syria has by no means satisfied the opposition and chief Western governments. The recent statement by the United Nations Security Council regarding the developments in Syria is the effort of some for turning the crisis in Syria into an international issue.
The Western governments were looking for a resolution, but with the opposition of Syria, China, Brazil, India, Lebanon, and South Africa it was downgraded to a statement. This statement both condemns the violent measures of the Syrian government in its dealings with the opposition and calls on the opposition not to attack government institutions.
The “balance” was the demand of the Russians, who have a naval base in Syria’s Tartous Port. But will it persist? Putin, Russia’s prime minister, is warning Assad that if he doesn’t submit to the reforms, he might face a miserable fate (like Hosni Mubarak or Ben Ali).
It shouldn’t slip one’s mind that the passing of a resolution in support of the Libyan people and the establishment of a no-fly zone morphed into a permit for the Western governments and the NATO to authorize the rocket and a air raids on this country and expel Libyan diplomats from their capitals and to provide financial, food, and arms aids and military instruction to the opponents of Gaddafi.
Not only has NATO’s military intervention not helped to end the crisis in this country, but it has also deepened it. The current balance between the two sides in Libya means the possibility of the war in this country becoming corrosive and the subsequently the practical disintegration of this country. Not even the defection of some of the army units to the opposition forces has tipped the current equations.
In response to the statement by NATO’s secretary general who had said that the situation is not ripe for NATO’s intervention in Syria, Russia’s representative in NATO says that NATO is hatching a plan for attacking Syria.
The leaders of the US, France, and Germany have in their latest contacts demanded the intensification of pressure on Syria.
The White House has not specified what the new means of exerting pressure will be, but the inclination in the administrative circles of the US has leaked into the media that the US is seeking a division in the Syrian Army.
The US foreign secretary meets with Assad’s opponents and persuades the Western states like Canada to take similar steps. Perhaps the next step is officially recognizing a transitional council of the Bashar Assad opposition. News has been heard from Washington that Hillary Clinton fears the initiation of a civil war and religious strife in Syria by Bashar Assad.
So far these comments can be considered part of the psychological warfare and further rallying against the Syrian regime. The Libya experience does not allow the West and the NATO coalition a rerun in Syria. The only solution is a military coup or the crippling of the army and the greater spread of demonstrations which makes efficient use of the internet social websites.
Provoking the Syrian army into splitting and facing one another increase the possibility of a civil war.
Inciting revolt in Syria will turn into its destructive form. The assassination of Abdul Fatah Younis in Libya rang alarm bells for those countries who downplayed the possibility of the infiltration of al-Qaeda among the Gaddafi opposition. Will a war-torn and divided Syria, besides an Israel facing social and financial crises, help the preservation of Western interests?