Far from heading towards a solution, the Syrian conflict, which has thus far claimed some 120,000 lives, has been acquiring new layers of complexity. As the Americans and the Russians engage in their usual sparring, the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has shown little interest in talks, and the regional players are following any number of conflicting agendas. Differences between Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been fuelling the conflict, while mediators such as UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi continue their slow-paced diplomatic efforts. For over a year now, the opposition abroad, represented by the National Coalition of the Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), has made the removal of the Al-Assad regime a condition for any talks. The domestic opposition, represented by the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC), has said that it is willing to attend another round of talks, the so-called Geneva II negotiations, but only if the results of the first round of talks at Geneva I are implemented in full. The result in which the NCCDC has been most interested has to do with the establishment of a transitional government with full executive powers. Under these circumstances NCCDC officials seem ready to allow Al-Assad to stay in office, but only as a figurehead bereft of all practical power. Over the past few months, the regime has been saying that it is willing to attend the Geneva II Conference, but only if the other parties stop setting prior conditions. Al-Assad has said that he will not give up power and has indicated that he plans to stay in power until the next presidential elections, due in nine months time, and has every intention of running for office again. Earlier this week, NCSROF leader Ahmed Al-Jerba said that he would be willing to attend Geneva II, but only if the goal was to form a transitional government with full powers. Al-Jerba's remarks were immediately misconstrued by fellow opposition members, both at home and abroad. Some went as far as saying that Al-Jerba was betraying the Syrian revolution. Faced with such accusations, Al-Jerba retracted his statement, saying that he was quoted out of context. Then he reiterated the old NCSROF position that Geneva II must lead to the complete removal of the current regime. Kamel Al-Libwani, a key figure in the NCSROF, lashed out at Al-Jerba. Anyone who attended Geneva II, he said, would be a “traitor to the revolution”, adding that any political solution should start with Al-Assad's removal and the dismantling of the regime. NCSROF officials said that any negotiations with the current regime were unacceptable. Michel Kilo, also a key figure in the NCSROF, said that the Syrian opposition would not accept a political solution unless the regime, and not just its chemical weapons, was put under international supervision. “We want Al-Assad to be placed under international supervision. We cannot accept anything less, and we are not going to participate in any political process unless this happens,” Kilo said. Other opposition leaders, especially from the leftist and nationalist currents, have no objection to attending the Conference, however. A long-term political solution, they say, is better than a military solution with no end in sight. Haitham Manna, leader of the Coordination Committee Abroad, told Al-Ahram Weekly that current diplomatic efforts might be sluggish, but they were heading in the right direction. “The elements of a solution are still not there. For example, Damascus is edging closer to attending Geneva II, although the security services and the regime's inner circle know that the Conference may spell the end of their hold on power,” he said. Thus far, the NCSROF has agreed to attend, but it has also set almost impossible conditions. However, should those who hold the purse strings encourage it, the opposition will have little option but to attend. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are still in favour of a military solution, but the US might put pressure on them to change their minds, Manna said. “I believe that the real question is Al-Assad's position and not the man himself. Once his powers have become merely symbolic, he can either continue his term or step down in favour of one of his deputies. The fate of Al-Assad will be determined not by the Americans and the Russians but by the political arrangements that will follow,” Manna added. Louay Hussein, leader of the State Reconstruction Current, an opposition group, was worried about the outcome of the Geneva II Conference. Speaking to the Weekly, Hussein said that “the problem with Geneva II is that the Syrian parties are not involved in the preparations. As a result, the interests of the Syrians will be upstaged by the interests of the major countries, especially Russia and America.” “This means that Syria will be subjected to one form or another of international custody in the future. We are being asked to either accept this custodianship or to continue with the current destruction and killing.” A high-level European diplomat told the Weekly that the UN had instructed its offices in Switzerland to train a number of Syrian opposition politicians in negotiations skills ahead of the Conference. The UN was unlikely to have made such a move without US prodding, he said, which meant that Washington was actively preparing for the Conference. Geneva II remains largely shrouded in secrecy. It is not known whether the opposition will be represented by one delegation or a number of delegations. It is not known either whether the civilian opposition or the Free Syrian Army will have the greater say once the Conference gets underway. It is not clear whether the regime will be made to keep to its commitments, or whether it will be allowed to break them as it has done in the past. In the absence of clarification on such issues, the success of the conference is already in doubt.
