It is still too early to assess the performance of the Arab observers' committee in Syria, along with the outcome of its work. The protocol signed between the Arab League and the authorities in Damascus does not grant its members wide prerogatives, while its mission is new to “joint Arab action”, which has been sitting in the corners of oblivion and neglect. The committee's task is not a fact-finding one, nor one related to the monitoring of the ceasefire or the implementation of an agreement between two conflicting sides. It aims at detecting the extent of the sides' commitment to the Arab initiative, which in itself does not feature a political settlement of the conflict in Syria. This is all true, in addition to numerous points that could contribute to the weakening of the observers, namely the strict control imposed on them by the Syrian security apparatuses, and the logistic restraints that seem to be affecting the simplest equipment necessary to register and document what they are inspecting. Moreover, the authorities are disregarding a key article in the protocol, related to the entry of the independent press to accompany the observers' mission. Nonetheless, such obstacles are expected from a regime which chose killing as the only method of dialogue with its oppositionists. This reached the point where the spokesmen for the Syrian government, such as Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, hinted to the fact that they will drown the observers with details, while they are now drowning them with the blood of the Homs, Hama, Edlib and Duma populations in what seems to be a defiance of the committee's credibility even before it launches its work. But on the other hand, there is great discomfort prompted by the structure of the observers' committee, and especially its chairmanship. This is the least that could be said when checking the resume of Lieutenant General Mustafa al-Dabi, the head of the observers' mission. Indeed, how can one imagine a man who spent most of his professional life in the intelligence apparatuses of President Omar al-Bashir's regime – which has a known history of domestic wars in the South and Darfur and for the fierce suppression of the opposition in the North – lead a committee monitoring the implementation of an agreement signed by an authority which matches Khartoum's oppression? And regardless of Al-Dabi's mysterious role in Darfur and the fact that his name was not featured on the list of the accused who are wanted by the international criminal court – despite the information about his supervision over the founding and armament of the notorious Janjaweed militias – the man added insult to injury by considering that the situation in Homs was “reassuring.” He said that following the bloody attack carried out by the Syrian armed forces against the Baba Amro part of the city and at a time when the security was shooting at the peaceful demonstrators in Hama, which is not too far from Homs. One can claim that the way Al-Dabi was chosen to head the observers' committee summarizes the method used by the Arab commissions – whether in the League or the regimes alike – when looking into issues concerning these neglected and forgotten human masses dubbed the Arab populations. Hence, the Arab official regime can still elect its oddest, most dodgy and most run down to deal with sensitive issues, namely the relationship between a population being subjected to daily massacres and an authority drowning in its denial and waywardness. The League had adopted reasonable steps in regard to Libya and Syria under the pressures of the street, the demonstrators and the rebelling populations. But what is certain is that the Arab spring has not yet crossed the doorstep of the League's headquarters in Cairo, let alone the doorsteps of the officials' offices in it.
