ELEVEN months ago, a semi-Syrian government-in-exile was formed on the Turkish territories in the name of the Syrian National Council (SNC). The move was a direct challenge to the government of Bashar Assad. The Free Syrian Army was also established as a substitute to Assad’s army. If you still remember the circumstances and the general political climate at the time, you will recall that many people ridiculed the idea, not just because the Syrian regime was strong but because the Syrian opposition was without any identity and composed of unknown figures except the movement of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was old and disciplined.

To foil the initiatives, the regime invented opposition groups, organized meetings for them inside Syria, and asked them to send missions to the outside world claiming that they represented the real Syrian opposition. The move was aimed at casting doubts on and sabotaging the substitute Syrian regime that was formed outside. The move did not succeed. Moments after the military council was formed, one of its symbols, Hussein Harmoush, was abducted from Turkey and supposedly killed in Syria. This move did not succeed in stopping the project of the new Syria represented by a substitute political and military system.

Members of the SNC met in Sweden for two days and agreed to expand it. George Sabra, one of its leading members, said the membership would be increased from 300 to 400 and that every opposition group would be represented by 20 members. He said the council would resort to free elections to choose its leadership.

Although there is a lot of criticism against the performance of the SNC, everybody knows that the Syrian opposition is a new phenomenon, so it is not surprising to see differences in opinions and visions. We all agree that the ultimate goal of the council, however, remains the toppling of the Assad regime and the establishment of a political system that will enable the Syrian people to choose its rulers. This agreement, despite the political differences, is ascertained by the fact that the members have chosen Abdul Basit Syda, who is a Kurd, to be the chairman of the council. The choice of a Kurish citizen to head the newly born council is a proof that Syria is no more a country to be run by a single religious sect. Sweden represents a second home to Syda, who is teaching at one of the Swedish universities.

Radwan Ziyadah, director of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Washington, has also accepted the council. He said he was committed to the SNC despite all its mistakes, as it was the political entity closest to representing all the factions of the opposition. “There is no alternative for the council inside Syria,” he said.

Therefore, political differences cannot justify sabotaging this entity, which is representing all the Syrians. Similarly, the Free Syrian Army has grouped together all the opposing military personnel. It was the banner under which all those who deserted the regime’s army fought together. We have seen, on various occasions, many fighters claiming to be members of the Free Army while in fact they had no contacts with it.

They were fighting to defend their areas. Now, the Free Syrian Army has adopted a new name, the National Army. It has restructured itself to be more qualified to work as a professional military institution committed to toppling the regime and to preserve the unity and territorial integrity of threats that are facing the new Syria project from the Assad regime itself or its Russian and Iranian allies.

These threats include the possibility of civil war and sectarian and racial fighting. The new country will also have to face terrorist groups that have infiltrated into Syria during the crisis. All these threats are known to the opposition, but they require unanimity of the Syrian people to work within a new democratic system that will respect the legal aspirations of all citizens.

E-mail: [email protected]