FOG IN THE "ARAB SPRING"

The revolutionary process in the Arab world is becoming protracted in nature. If in Egypt and Tunisia the new authorities are busy preparing for the forthcoming elections intended to finally put an end to the authoritarian past of their countries, the situation in a number of other Arab states is far more unpredictable. How will the war in Libya and the growing protests in Syria end? The answers to these questions are not known, which clouds the prospects of the "Arab spring" even more.

Libya: Is an "internal solution" possible, but unattainable?

Four months have passed since the beginning of the NATO operation in Libya, which was initially expected to last about 90 days. On 1 June, the North Atlantic alliance extended its Libyan campaign for another 90 days, but there is no guarantee that this time, the operation will achieve its main objective - the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi's regime. Western strategists, though reluctantly, are contemplating options for ground operations, as the air strikes on the Libyan leader's forces did not lead to a radical weakening of their military capabilities.

Given this disappointing fact for the West, efforts are being made to legitimize the opposition National Transitional Council (NTC), which was established in February this year in Benghazi in counterbalance to Tripoli and is headed by Libya's former justice minister, Mustafa Abd al-Jalil. 

The leading Western powers and the International Contact Group on Libya, which met in Istanbul, recognized the NTS as the legitimate government of Libya. Expressing Washington's position on this issue, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton said that Qaddafi has lost legitimacy and should immediately leave Libya, while the Libyans themselves have to think about how to reconstruct their country after the departure of their leader.

In response, the leader of the Jamahiriyyah quipped: "Recognize the so-called National Transitional Council a million times: it means nothing to the Libyans who will not support your decisions." Qaddafi said that he would continue to fight the rebels until the Day of Judgement, completely ruling out the chances of an agreement with the NTC, which also remains adamant in its demand for the departure of the Libyan revolution leader.

Against the background of the impossibility of establishing at least some internal Libyan dialogue, the war rages on, claiming the lives of innocent people every day. The situation is not moving forward: the rebels are demanding Qaddafi's departure as a guarantee for internal Libyan dialogue, while Qaddafi insists on a preliminary cease-fire by NATO. It is not surprising that after two days of talks in Tripoli and Benghazi, the UN secretary general's special envoy to Libya, Abdelilla Khatib, was categorical that the rebels and the government of Libya are still far from finding a political solution to the conflict.

Meanwhile, the West is also far from finding a way out of the deadlock in Libya. In order to clarify the situation as soon as possible, the US and the EU are more inclined to the idea of giving Qaddafi the opportunity to live quietly at home after his supposed resignation from power. The idea was first proposed by the French. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that one possible way to end the Libyan conflict is to allow Qaddafi to stay in the country after his resignation. After that, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that "if the Libyan people believe that an internal solution is possible, Italy agrees with it". A spokesman for the US presidential administration, Jay Carney, was forced to agree that the Libyan people must decide for themselves whether Muammar Qaddafi will remain in the country or leave it. A similar position is shared by the British government, in connection with which one can speak of the West's consolidated approach, namely, any contact with Qaddafi depends on his departure from power, after which reliable guarantees will be provided for the former dictator and his family to safely live in Libya.

However, Tripoli, in fact, rejected such suggestions. It is not surprising, since Qaddafi rejects the very likelihood of resignation and departure from the political scene under pressure from the opposition and external forces encouraging it. So the question of what to do in a situation where Qaddafi does not want to leave and NATO military strikes do not lead to the fall of his regime and, accordingly, the triumph of the opposition government, takes an even more acute and inescapable nature. This is the reason for active mediatory efforts by Russia whose leader said during a visit to Germany: "We must continue to seek opportunities for the peaceful settlement of the situation, and the Libyan problem has no military solution." It is noteworthy that, agreeing with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev's statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledged that now we are talking about how to solve the Libyan problem as soon as possible. "Of course, it cannot be solved only by military means."

The West realizes that NATO can get totally bogged down in the Libyan conflict. So the choice is now between increased diplomatic efforts with the possible removal of the categorical demand for Qaddafi's departure and the expansion of military operations and support for NTC forces. But it is almost impossible to predict whether decisions on any of the options for the further development of the military campaign against Qaddafi's regime will lead to a swift solution to the Libyan drama. Meanwhile, there is a reason that prompts the West to clarify this story with Muammar Qaddafi as soon as possible.

Syria: Will reform save Assad?

One of the key countries in the context of the future fate of the Arab revolution is Syria, which is playing a major role in the geopolitics of the entire Middle East. With the increase in domestic tensions, the hopes of the US and Europe for the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is a major obstacle to many Western plans on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, the resolution of the Lebanese crisis and even the Iranian problem, are also increasing. By and large, Syria is the only country in the Arab world, which openly opposes the strengthening of American influence in the Middle East. It is not surprising that with the development of the internal Syrian crisis, Western strategists appear even more tempted to subjugate obstinate Damascus at any cost.

The confrontation in Syria is indeed growing. Moreover, it impresses with the wide involvement of human masses in the protest movement, the politicization of citizens, social groups and public organizations, as well as the authorities' readiness to use any force to suppress the unrest. The regime's tough actions and the use of regular army units and security forces have resulted in Damascus taking to full control of the centres of the protest movement - the cities of Dera'a, Homs, Latakia, Baniyas and Hama. According to human rights campaigners, last month alone, more than 2,000 people were arrested on suspicion of anti-government activities in Syria. During the four months since the beginning of the unrest in the country, about 15,000 people have found themselves behind bars. The number of those killed in clashes with the army and police is about 1,500.

Against this background, international pressure on Assad's regime is growing. The leaders of many nations and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have urged the Syrian leadership to immediately stop the crackdown. On the one hand, Assad demonstrates intransigence, leaving the opposition no chance to realize their political demands aimed primarily at the president's resignation. On the other hand, the Syrian leader decided to pursue a pre-emptive tactic and initiated reforms that might result in partial democratization in the country. First, he cancelled the state of emergency, declared two amnesties, began reforms in the security services, education system and addressed the issue of employment. And now he is promoting an initiative to adopt a bill that will open the way for a multiparty system in the country. The bill must go through an approval process at the National Council, which is controlled by the ruling Baath party, which is why there is no doubt that it will be adopted. However, the document provides for a number of restrictions such as age and residency limits - citizens must be at least 25 years old to join a party and have to live in Syria for at least 10 years. Also, there is a direct ban on the creation of parties based on a tribal, professional and religious basis, which leaves the Sunnis no chance to unite against the Alawite Shiites ruling the country.

In any case, no reform, whether it is substantial or cosmetic, will affect the position of the West, which has already delivered its verdict on the Assad regime, which essentially means that the Syrian president must resign. Specifically, the United States, declaring Bashar Assad illegitimate, is trying to push through a UN Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against Syria. However, Russia and China are getting in the way of this, letting it be known that they will not allow a repeat of the Libyan experience. For example, Dmitriy Medvedev said that Russia will not allow a resolution on Syria to be adopted: "We would not want to have a resolution, which they would subsequently manipulate, wave like a sheet and say:" It says here that Assad is bad, so we're going to close the sky."

It is another thing if the same Western powers will heed Moscow's position when it finally comes to "the closure of the sky" over Assad. Experience shows that unanimity in the UN is not a mandatory basis for NATO strikes on an enemy of the "free world".