Fears that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad would gain an upper hand in the UN-sponsored peace talks are coming true. The UN envoy Staffan de Mistura made a proposal before Syria’s opposition attending peace talks in Geneva that Assad could continue as president during a political transition, with three deputies under him from the opposition. The UN envoy said the proposal could end the vicious cycle of debate over a transitional period to end the war, on which the talks had become stuck. As expected, the opposition fiercely rejected the proposal.
The UN suggestion is sensible and is a reflection of the current realities on the ground. The civil war in Syria is turning in Assad’s favour, with his forces, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah and other allies, recapturing land from the opposition rebels and the Islamic State. A resurgent Assad has no need to listen to the demands of the opposition and the UN, which is keen on finding a negotiated solution to the crisis to bring to end the suffering of millions of Syrians, is looking at formulas which can work.
The fate of Assad has been the key sticking point in the discussions involving the opposition High Negotiations Committee and a government delegation. The HNC spokesman Salem Al Meslet said that the opposition would be willing to cooperate with regime “diplomats and technocrats” in a transitional period, but he insisted that there would be no role for Assad or anyone who had played a central role in the civil war, which has killed 270,000 people and displaced millions. The talks would now enter a cul-de-sac unless the opposition dilutes its demand and agrees to the UN proposal.
It’s both ironic and unfortunate that the Syrian revolution is faltering, and the sacrifices of millions of people for freedom and democracy are going in vain. But the blame for the failure, if the current situation can be called one, must be shared by all – foremost by the opposition, which has failed to assemble a powerful force against Assad and win the sufficient backing of the international community, and secondly by the Arab and Western countries, which failed to give substantial backing to the opposition in a way that can change the fighting in their favour. The US has especially been criticized for its lack of coherence and determination in the Syria policy. President Barack Obama’s initial promises to help the opposition and punish Assad if he crossed certain redlines didn’t materialize after he weighed the pros and cons of another intervention by his army in the Middle East.
The revolution can still succeed and lead to the ouster of Assad if the international community stands firmly with the opposition.
Fears that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad would gain an upper hand in the UN-sponsored peace talks are coming true. The UN envoy Staffan de Mistura made a proposal before Syria’s opposition attending peace talks in Geneva that Assad could continue as president during a political transition, with three deputies under him from the opposition. The UN envoy said the proposal could end the vicious cycle of debate over a transitional period to end the war, on which the talks had become stuck. As expected, the opposition fiercely rejected the proposal.
The UN suggestion is sensible and is a reflection of the current realities on the ground. The civil war in Syria is turning in Assad’s favour, with his forces, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah and other allies, recapturing land from the opposition rebels and the Islamic State. A resurgent Assad has no need to listen to the demands of the opposition and the UN, which is keen on finding a negotiated solution to the crisis to bring to end the suffering of millions of Syrians, is looking at formulas which can work.
The fate of Assad has been the key sticking point in the discussions involving the opposition High Negotiations Committee and a government delegation. The HNC spokesman Salem Al Meslet said that the opposition would be willing to cooperate with regime “diplomats and technocrats” in a transitional period, but he insisted that there would be no role for Assad or anyone who had played a central role in the civil war, which has killed 270,000 people and displaced millions. The talks would now enter a cul-de-sac unless the opposition dilutes its demand and agrees to the UN proposal.
It’s both ironic and unfortunate that the Syrian revolution is faltering, and the sacrifices of millions of people for freedom and democracy are going in vain. But the blame for the failure, if the current situation can be called one, must be shared by all – foremost by the opposition, which has failed to assemble a powerful force against Assad and win the sufficient backing of the international community, and secondly by the Arab and Western countries, which failed to give substantial backing to the opposition in a way that can change the fighting in their favour. The US has especially been criticized for its lack of coherence and determination in the Syria policy. President Barack Obama’s initial promises to help the opposition and punish Assad if he crossed certain redlines didn’t materialize after he weighed the pros and cons of another intervention by his army in the Middle East.
The revolution can still succeed and lead to the ouster of Assad if the international community stands firmly with the opposition.
