The most difficult matter that is increasing the complications of the Syrian crisis and the difficulties preventing its resolution consists of the state of denial that the Syrian officials have been adopting since the beginning of this crisis. This state started by denying the real causes behind the crisis and by accusing the oppositionists who were calling for a real move in the direction of a pluralistic, democratic regime of being a bunch of “armed terrorists” whose only objective is to destroy the state's authority and sovereignty based on external plots. Things went to the extent of denying the existence of a quasi-unanimous international consensus against the regime's actions as most of the world countries blacklisted the most prominent Syrian officials and prevented them from entering these countries, in addition to banning any political and financial dealing with them. The Syrian regime responded to these positions by dropping complete continents off the world map. This was the fate of the European continent at the hands of Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. The denial currently reached the extent of coming up with a different reading of the last international resolution allowing for dispatching international observers to Syria and organizing their work. The Syrian officials claimed that this resolution does not represent a threat to the state's sovereignty. However, imposing an international surveillance on the dealing of any regime with its citizens means that there are doubts concerning the behavior of this regime and the work of the security apparatuses belonging to this regime. In addition, such a surveillance also places this regime in the intensive care unit and calls for an exceptional kind of dealing that does not normally apply to the regimes that behave in an acceptable and normal manner vis-à-vis their citizens, according to international standards. The Syrian officials have been exaggerating by considering that this resolution actually serves their interests. The Syrian President's Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban did say that this resolution will unmask the people who are responsible for “monitoring the violations against the citizens and the state institutions.” However, by merely demanding the withdrawal of the security forces and the regime's military deployments from the cities and residential areas as a first condition to halt the acts of violence in Syria, this matter in itself constitutes a downgrading of the state's sovereignty over its lands, since it holds the state responsible for the ongoing acts of violence. The regime in any country normally has the right to deploy its forces wherever it desires on its land. This right is only revoked, and these forces come under surveillance only when major offenses are committed against the citizens or when these forces are accused of being “occupation forces” as per the accusation of the opposition and the majority of the international community against the forces of the Syrian regime. The Syrian officials are inventing their own scenarios in order to manage the crisis, and explain and analyze its reasons. Then, they believe the scenarios that they invented. However, these fabrications do not invalidate the facts and there is no guarantee that the people will believe them. The Syrian authorities claimed that they must learn the moves of the observers beforehand in order to secure their safety. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded to these claims by saying that the observers' freedom of movement and allowing them to make their contacts with no hindrances, and guaranteeing their access to whomever they want on Syrian soil, is the responsibility of the Syrian government, which is also responsible for the observers' team safety. The Syrian officials might be considering turning the mission of Colonel Ahmad Himmich into what they did to the mission of Lieutenant General Mohammed al-Dabi. The latter's movement, along with the movements of the Arab observers, were controlled by the security authorities and the regime's intelligence services. But Damascus would be making a major mistake this time in case it was to deal with the latest international resolution the way it dealt with the Arab initiative. It is important to note that Resolution 2042 has placed the Syrian crisis under the eyes of the entire world. This crisis is no longer a purely Arab one. The Syrian leadership had tried to avoid this since the very beginning under the pretext that it wants to preserve the “Arab solution.” It is also important to correctly comprehend the meaning of the Russian and Chinese voting in favor of this resolution. This resolution did equate the regime and the opposition in terms of responsibility for the acts of violence and it did call on both of them to stop. However, a thorough reading of the resolution's clauses reveals that the regime forces and apparatuses are primarily responsible for halting the warfare. This means that the other forces are only reacting to the regime's actions. In addition, the resolution brings back the clauses of Kofi Annan's plan including the need to move towards “a political process that responds to the legitimate demands of the Syrian population.” This implies that meeting these demands rather than cleansing the Syrian cities from “armed terrorists” represents the way out of this crisis.
