Syria: differences in opposition to international intervention

National Coalition for Syria, which groups opposition forces, the authorship of the poison gas attacks on Wednesday August 21, 2013 is clear. The Assad regime is responsible, said the opposition group the same day of the attack, appealing to the international community intervention: "We urge the Security Council to try crimes of Assad and publish a resolution to ensure the maintenance of peace and security ".

As a basis for their claims, the National Coalition alludes to numerous witness statements confirming the responsibility of the Assad regime. Political signs also point to his trial in that direction. "There are very suspicious of the opposition to think that they would kill those who support and help," says Sadiq Al-Mousllie, spokesman for the Syrian National Council in Germany, an organization belonging to the National Coalition. While acknowledging the existence of extremist groups mixed with the opposition, Al-Mousllie looks unlikely to have been the last the authors: "If they had they would face a tough reaction from the real opposition Syria. The Syrian Liberation Army would not accept, "he says.

The National Coalition ambassador in France, Monzer Makhous, agrees appeal to the international community: "Western countries as defenders of human rights and freedom, could punish the Assad regime and environment for the massacres and attacks chemical weapons, "said Makhous in conversation with DW, adding that this could be done" for example through military action."

Expectations opposition

Such intervention is facing many obstacles yet diplomatic. Neither China nor Russia would accept UN resolution to that effect, said Monzer Makhous. But, in view of the chemical attacks, believes the action against the regime would be legitimate even without a UN resolution, "United Nations recognizes the principle of protection. This requires international actors to intervene in cases of gross violations of human rights by a government. "

Furthermore, in the current scenario, a military intervention could also be strategically appropriate for the National Coalition. As his spokesman Hisham says Marwah, the arming of the regime is clearly superior, especially with weapons from Russia and Iran. The opposition does not have a similar support.

Intervention risk

But not all opposition groups supporting military intervention. The Syrian National Committee for the Coordination of the Transition to Democracy manifests categorically against. His spokesman, Haythan Manna, told United Press that chemical weapons came from local manufacturers. At the same time, the group criticized focus attention only on victims of chemical attack while in Syria and 100,000 people have died.

What is clear is that military intervention would be risky. The newspaper "Al Hayat" said that, in case of attack, Damascus could launch missiles into Israel, causing that country reacts. At the same time, the Assad regime could shoot neighboring Jordan and Turkey (NATO member). Neither could anticipate the reaction of Iran, an ally of Assad, Hezbollah or Israel. Also jeopardized the UN troops in southern Lebanon. Like the daily Al-Sadiq also sees the risks Mousslie entail military action. "But if we wait, there will be risks," the spokesman concluded.