The Arab Spring seems to have encountered challenges in Syria higher than expected. The nearly year-long domestic clashes between Syrian forces and the angry protestors have led to certain concessions and reform programs offered by President Bashar Al-Assad government. It has also provoked regional and international calls for democratic change in the country and political support for Syrian demonstrators.
The Arab Middle Eastern nation has undergone severe instability and conflicts followed by the widespread public uprising across the Arab world. Subsequent to a failed international consensus to issue a proper resolution against Assad's regime, his men have enhanced crackdown to counteract rising public anger over long brutal attacks, mission of the Arab Union's monitors and Russia and China's veto against the proposed resolution in United Nations Security Council.
On Monday, reports said that Syrian forces launched a fresh wave of attacks across several of the city's districts in what has been described by one activist as the 'most violent bombardment' in recent days. The new assault, which followed what activists said was a "massacre" in the central city overnight Friday and a weekend of further shelling, came after the opposition had warned a veto by Russia and China of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria had handed the regime a "licence to kill."
Syria's opposition group leader Catherine al-Talli said, 'The regime is acting as if it were immune to international intervention and has a free hand to use violence against the people.' The weekend death toll was one of the bloodiest since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's regime erupted almost 11 months ago. Opposition groups say at least 6,000 people have now been killed.
The latest violence comes as Western powers vow to seek new ways to punish Damascus amid growing outrage after the double veto by Russia and China of a UN resolution condemning Syria for its deadly crackdown on protests.
The vetoes on Saturday had handed President Bashar al-Assad's regime a "licence to kill" according to the opposition Syrian National Council. "The SNC holds both governments accountable for the escalation of killings and genocide, and considers this irresponsible step a licence for the Syrian regime to kill without being held accountable," it said of Russia and China.
The second UN double veto in four months also fuelled angry reaction from Washington, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it a "travesty" and vowing to push for new sanctions on Syria. Similarly, Foreign Secretary William Hague has criticised Russia and China's veto of a UN resolution condemning Mr. Assad's regime, claiming the nations would now 'have blood on their hands' as the country moves closer to civil war.
Russia defended its veto saying Western powers refused to reach a consensus. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov prepared to visit Damascus on Tuesday, as news reports said the mission could try to push Assad to quit. "Russia strongly intends to achieve a rapid stabilisation of the situation in Syria through the rapid implementation of much-needed democratic reforms," the Russian foreign ministry said.
Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said Western states should have delayed the vote at UN headquarters in New York until his trip to Syria on Tuesday. "Some comments from the West on the UN Security Council vote, I would say, are indecent and bordering on hysteria," said Mr Lavrov in Moscow. "It reminds me of the proverb: 'he who gets angry is rarely right'," he added.
China denied angry accusations from Western nations and the Arab League, which were united behind the resolution, that it was protecting the Assad regime's slaughter of civilians. Reflecting outrage in Western capitals, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said blood would be spilt on the hands of Russia and China.
The regime's intransigence was "tipping parts of Syria closer to something that begins to look like civil war," he said on Sunday. As the Syrian army continued heavy shelling on the rebel city of Homs yesterday, China's foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said: "On the issue of Syria, China is not sheltering anyone nor do we intentionally oppose anyone.
We uphold justice and take a responsible attitude." Like the Russians, he said the UN resolution, he said, put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian government, when armed opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army were also responsible for violence.
He said the vote in New York prejudged the result of any dialogue with opposition groups in Syria. China supported further dialogue to cease the violence, he said, without giving specifics on what China would do to bring about that end. At least 6,000 lives have been lost in 11 months of protests demanding an end to the Assad era. He said he had no information on any plans by Beijing to send envoys to Syria.
Though reports vary and cannot be verified, hundreds were allegedly killed by "indiscriminate" army shelling in the city of Homs on Friday, and dozens more in the rest of the country. The bloodshed reportedly continued since then.
Meanwhile at the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China vetoed the Arab League-sponsored resolution calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down on Saturday, ending a diplomatic intrigue that had gone on for days.
Whether the two developments are related - an important question in and of itself - is closely linked to the question whether Assad's show of force is a sign of arrogance or weakness. He may well be trying to replicate, so far on a smaller scale, the massacre his father committed in the city of Hama in 1982 - where between 10,000 and 40,000 people were killed following a rebellion.
An interpretation apologetic to the regime would point out all the signs of foreign involvement in funding the rebels and claim that trying to pass a resolution at the UN calling for Assad's ouster finally convinced him that nothing short of his father's brutality would help him. Today, a decision to commit a large-scale massacre is more fateful even than it was back in 1982.
Despite the frequent blackouts and the intense media censorship, the technology available to the average person, even in Syria, makes it impossible to hide such an atrocity for long. It is a very risky course to take, and not just because of the international outcry (and possible intervention down the road): it could well alienate some of the last genuine regime supporters.
To prove to totalitarian regimes that no autocratic systems will last long, on itself, is a victory for the millions of people who have been marching the streets for the past few months. The protests, however, have led to greatly successful outcomes, could promote the idea that no undemocratic force can resist against public determination forever.
The totalitarian regimes will inevitably fall down if people get enough political awareness, possess adequate determination to practice their citizenship rights and adopt appropriate mechanisms to fight authoritarianism. Taking a glimpse at the historic annals, one can clearly see how significant the public participation is to develop and expand democratic values and egalitarian approaches. The governing systems that try to deny the citizens their basic civil and political rights do usually rely on violent means to strictly monitor every single aspect of public life. But it will never be everlasting.