America and Russia, we are told, are determined to end the Syrian crisis, which has thus far left more than 100,000 dead. Some time around mid-June, US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov hope to bring together the main players in the crisis for negotiations in Geneva intended to bring peace to the country. To lend their weight to the deal, US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin are also expected to meet after the conference. This would be a good thing, were it not for the fact that Washington and Moscow have taken diametrically opposed stands to almost every aspect of the forthcoming talks, including who will be invited to the conference. As preparations get underway, there has been no sign that the Americans and Russians can narrow their differences. In fact, no one is sure about the best way to make an agreement stick, or what kind of mandate is needed to enforce it. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Syrian opposition figure Fawwaz Tallu said that the conference may end up being an exercise in futility. “The international powers want us to hold talks that have no timetable, no agenda, no goals, no conditions, and no suitable environment for talks. This will be great for the regime, which wants to waste time. Meanwhile, it is hitting us with all its military power and even asking its friend Iran for help,” he said. Tallu did not expect the conference to produce lasting results. “Those who hope that the negotiations will lead to an agreement are deceiving themselves. The regime has turned the conflict into a regional and sectarian one. Therefore, we must remain focussed on the military scenario and give the revolutionaries the help they need. A political solution is not viable at this stage,” he commented. Russia, still faithful to the Syrian regime, wants the opposition to stop calling for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to step down, and it does not want a transitional government to have complete power. Instead, it is arguing that the Syrian army and police must remain in the hands of al-Assad during any transitional stage, and it also wants Iran to attend the Geneva Conference. By contrast, the US does not see a role for Al-Assad in any future Syria, or at least it wants to see him step down from power. The Americans are not averse to Tehran sending a delegation to the conference, but they are aware that France and the Gulf countries will not allow this to happen. Members of the Syrian opposition are concerned that the Americans could cede too much power to the Russians, who want the regime to remain in power although with cosmetic reforms. There are signs, however, that the Americans are only giving the Russians a last chance in holding the conference, and, if it fails, they may decide to go it alone. On 23 May, the US Senate committee on foreign relations approved plans to provide “lethal assistance” to the Syrian opposition, including defensive hardware and training. On 24 May, Kerry warned that unless the Syrian regime was willing to negotiate a goodwill agreement, the US would help the opposition in its “struggle for freedom”. Four days later, the EU decided to partially lift the ban on arms exports to Syria, though thus far there have been doubts that the opposition will receive the promised weapons. The US congress may block the delivery, and Europe is likely to sit on its hands until the conference is over. The Al-Assad regime is not in the mood for a compromise, and the fact that Russia is opposed to military intervention by the West is giving it hope. On 28 May, Lavrov said that his country would continue to ship S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Syria, and Moscow has also sent 12 more warships to join its fleet off the Syrian shores. In a recent television interview, al-Assad presented his conditions for attending the Geneva Conference, one being that he should stay in office until mid-2014 and another being that he should be given the chance to run for office again. He claimed that his regime was the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Opposition members say that acceptance of these conditions would amount to capitulation. Meanwhile, the Syrian regime is throwing its full weight into battle, bringing in thousands of Hizbullah fighters from Lebanon in its support in the hope of scoring victories that will strengthen its hand at the negotiating table. Russia and the US are also unable to agree on who should represent the Syrian opposition. The opposition abroad, represented by the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), has Western and Arab backing. The domestic opposition, which is represented by the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDF), enjoys Moscow's support. Last week, the NCSROF accepted 51 new members within its ranks, from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the revolutionary forces at home as well as the liberals. The US was satisfied with the move, and considered it to have achieved the unification of the opposition's ranks. But the NCSROF, which the US wants to represent Syria at the Conference, has not yet come up with clear ideas about ending the crisis. The NCCDF, on the other hand, which Russia wants to include in the Conference, has come up with a working paper delineating the shape of the future Syrian state and outlining a detailed negotiation programme. However, it will be hard for the NCCDF to attend the conference without US approval, which is not forthcoming. Syrian writer Omar Kosh, speaking to the Weekly, said that the regime was playing for time. “Everyone in Syria would prefer a political solution that would save the country from bloodshed and destruction. People in Syria are tired of massacres and crimes, of the buzzing of planes and the thud of cannons. But most Syrians are wary of a political solution that could send them back to square one. There is concern that the regime is negotiating just to buy time.” Some observers believe that the Syrian crisis is also not high on the US agenda. The Obama administration, it is said, just needs to be seen to be taking action. If this allegation is true, then the Geneva II Conference may prove to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic, an event designed to keep everyone busy for a time. It should be said, however, that the realities on the ground in Syria are cruder than the nuances of international politics. On the one hand, there is a regime that is clearly willing to spill blood until the bitter end. And on the other, there is an opposition that knows that backing down is not an option. In other words, the crisis in Syria, far from approaching a solution, may be about to get worse.
