US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced last week their agreement on a draft solution for the Syrian crisis, essentially holding a conference at the end of May attended by the political regime in Syria, the opposition and influential states (expected to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran and EU), as well as the US and Russia. The conference aims to form a joint government between the regime and opposition with a broad mandate, to be in charge of resolving the Syrian crisis in line with the Geneva Declaration that major world countries agreed to in June 2012. Washington and Moscow believe this conference will be enough to resolve the Syrian crisis which began more than two years ago, in which more than 100,000 people have been killed, and many times more injured, arrested and maimed. The conflict has also left millions of displaced and refugees, destroyed 800,000 homes, and threatened to spill over into neighbouring countries. During their announcement in Moscow, the expressions of both top diplomats alternated between optimism and sternness. They expressed confidence in finding a political solution for the crisis, implied their positions were more serious than ever before, and they are on the same page. The EU, meanwhile, welcomed the US-Russian proposal and reiterated that resolving the conflict depends on a comprehensive political settlement. UN and Arab League envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said he was “optimistic” about the US-Russian consensus, describing the upcoming conference as “a very important first step forward, but only a first step”. The position of the UN and Arab League were similar to Brahimi's. Although the Syrian opposition and millions of Syrians affected by the regime's military clampdown and its catastrophic repercussions want a resolution for their tragedy, they reject any solution that does not guarantee the overthrow or changing of the regime. They refuse to allow their sacrifices go to waste. Meanwhile, the regime refuses to surrender or accept any solution that does not guarantee its survival and continuation in power after it converted the revolution into an armed sectarian conflict because it views the conflict as a battle for survival. The National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (NCSR), the main opposition coalition overseas, welcomed international efforts urging for a political solution that meets the aspirations of the people for a democratic state. However, it demanded the solution begin with the departure of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and key regime figures. The NCSR reminded that the regime undermined all previous initiatives and impeded any agreement, commission, Arab or UN team over the past two years. “The US-Russian initiative is the most serious,” Monzer Khaddam, spokesman of the National Coordinating Committee, the strongest opposition umbrella inside the country, told Al-Ahram Weekly. “But there are many obstacles on the path to success of this conference, including ones pertaining to the regime, such as accepting to give the transitional government a full mandate, restructuring security and military agencies, and its usual attempts to void talks of their content.” Khaddam added that, “the opposition can also be an obstacle, because they are not united. Some lack independent political will, while others insist the president must step down as a precondition, while holding him and his team accountable for crimes committed in Syria. There are also possible disputes about quotas in the transitional government.” Loay Hussein, leader of the opposition Building Syria Movement, told the Weekly: “There are serious obstacles, not just difficulties that could undermine the conference. Most importantly, the large number of anti-regime armed groups, some of which are not interested in ending the conflict. There are also many international players that will work against making the solution successful.” Hussein doubted the regime would agree to abdicate control over the army and security apparatus to a transitional government. “Based on the current balance of power, I do not believe the regime is ready to agree to key compromises,” he said. “The powers of the president must be defined and most of them transferred to the transitional government by a binding international resolution.” Indeed, Loay Al-Moqdad, spokesman for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), said: “any deal that does not guarantee the removal of the regime will never succeed,” asserting that the biggest obstacle facing the proposal is “the actions of the regime”. Discussing the fate of the FSA and its role in the transitional government, Al-Moqdad noted: “the FSA will become a national institution under the supervision of the ministry of defence in the phase following the overthrow of the regime; the weapons will be collected and ranks organised. After that anyone can return to their lives before the revolution.” One day after the announcement by Kerry and Lavrov, the White House explained Syria's future does not include Al-Assad who has lost all legitimacy and must step down. Kerry also stated Al-Assad would not be part of the transitional government, which is very similar to the position of the NCSR, but nonetheless remains ambiguous. “The success of the initiative based on the Geneva Declaration depends on whether Russia accepts the idea that Al-Assad will step down, and stop insisting Al-Assad should be part of the solution,” Loay Safi, member of the NCSR's political office, told the Weekly. “This position has not yet taken shape.” Meanwhile, Faeq Al-Mir, a leading figure in the leftist People's Party, told the Weekly, “no one believes the demand to remove the murderer and his murderous gang is a personal position against them. It is a realistic and essential demand for any genuine transfer of power and not circumventing the revolution and its goals. He who was the cause and source of the crisis can never be part of the solution. Removing murderers is a key precondition for the success of the transitional process.” Overall, the opposition is not optimistic about the US-Russian proposal and doubts it can be applied in reality, noting that any decision that is not a binding UN resolution will never be implemented. Also, that Al-Assad's regime will void any agreement of its content unless it is binding, especially since the fate of Al-Assad and his senior aides responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians remains unknown. Khaddam agrees, noting the need for international guarantees for the success of any agreement. “No deal can be implemented without being preceded by a binding Security Council resolution on the violence in Syria agreed by all sides, without being placed under international supervision, and without ensuring the release of detainees and the delivery of aid to those who need it. Also, allowing press freedom and removing the Baath Party from all state agencies and institutions.” The Geneva Declaration emphasises the need to begin policies for the transitional political process that would begin by an immediate halt of all types of violence with international oversight. Also, releasing detainees, guaranteeing the freedom of movement for journalists and humanitarian organisations, as well as allowing peaceful demonstrations. After that, practical political steps can be taken for settlement, with the aim of establishing a plural democratic state by forming a transitional government with full executive powers to include members of the regime and opposition. This cabinet would revise the constitution and legal system and then call for free and plural elections. Ghassan Al-Maflah, member of the opposition National Syrian Council (NSC), doubts there is US-Russian agreement on a solution for the crisis. “If there was US-Russian agreement there would be no need for a conference. Instead, they would have directly gone to the Security Council,” Al-Maflah explained to the Weekly. He added that Bashar Al-Assad “will never accept any political solution” and Russia “cannot impose any political solution on him. The best Moscow can do is accept the position of the others.” While US-Russian talks on Syria have made progress, the new consensus still lacks solid ground for implementation. Although the two major world powers can reach agreement on Syria, this does not mean their decision will remedy what is happening. The reality is much more complicated; both optimistic and pessimistic Syrians agree there are many more difficulties facing the solution reached in Moscow than its sponsors realise. One of the main obstacles threatening the US-Russian initiative is that both sides in Syria reject each other. The regime refuses to talk to the opposition overseas and views them as foreign agents, and Al-Assad insists on finishing his current term and upholding his right to run for a third term in 2014. Meanwhile, most of the opposition refuses to negotiate before Al-Assad and leaders of the security agencies and armed forces step down. Also, they adamantly refuse to allow Al-Assad to run for any office or participate in power. Another obstacle is the regime's refusal to force the president to abdicate his leadership of the army and security agencies during the transitional phase, because that would mean abdicating power and handing it over to the interim government. At the same time, leaders of the army and security agencies refuse to be under the command of such a government. There are many other difficulties that could be sources of dispute, including how to ascribe those killed on both sides as “martyrs”; the fate of the FSA; the fate of regular army officers who killed and destroyed; compensation for losses, especially for the dead and destroyed homes. Even more importantly, what will the structure of the next regime be? Will it be parliamentary or presidential? What about the constitution and requirements for adopting it? And the electoral system and who is elected? These are many important questions that the transitional government will need to address, and each issue could destroy negotiations. Facing all these challenges will require issuing a binding Security Council resolution under Chapter VII or Chapter VI of the UN Charter, firmly guaranteed by major world countries. It requires a resolution that includes details of the solution, proposed phases for implementation and those in charge of applying it. Only then would both sides in Syria be forced to accept a compromise; otherwise, the conflict will return to square one.
