Slowly, but not surely, the lines of diplomacy in Syria are being drawn in what is the equivalent of diplomatic quicksand. The opposition National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF) has made up its mind to attend the Geneva 2 Conference to discuss the crisis in Syria, and this leaves the way open for other groups also to decide to attend. Reluctantly, painfully almost, the NCSROF had gone through the motions of making demands and then rescinding them before deciding whether to attend the Geneva 2 Conference. Only very recently, it had been adamant that it would not go to Geneva unless the armed opposition groups endorsed it, and among other conditions it had demanded that detainees must be released, air raids discontinued and relief supplies allowed into the country. More importantly, the NCSROF had also said that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad should have no part to play in any transitional settlement in the country. While several members of the NCSROF are still against the group's participation, the majority, apparently running out of other options, seems to be willing to try its luck despite the failure to meet its conditions. The NCSROF, based abroad, is thus now joining the National Coordination Committee of Democratic Change (NCCDC), the largest home-based opposition bloc, in agreeing to attend the conference. Only the Islamist armed groups now remain opposed, and these groups, wishing to establish a state run by Islamic law in Syria, have accused those who intend to go to Geneva of “treason” and threatened to kill them. The decision by the non-armed opposition to attend Geneva 2 could not have come about without Western pressure, some say even coercion. This is because the Syrian conflict is no longer just a domestic affair, and, with Moscow and Washington both clearly determined to see the conference through, it has been hard for their local friends, both in the government and the opposition, to resist for long. However, some in the regime are still appalled at the idea of sitting down to talk with those whom they regard as rogue insurgents, or agents of the West, but even these have not been able to turn the tide, given Russian backing of the conference. Though they have procrastinated, trying to inundate the organisers with details and giving evasive answers to questions, at the end of the day non-compliance was not an option. In the end, all had to listen to the advice of their powerful benefactors. Seen from this angle, it is possible to argue that Geneva 2 is fast becoming an arena for regional and international rivalry as a result. The outcome of the conference, some opposition members say, is likely to emerge in a hail of compromise deals that depend more on what others want and not on the desires of the Syrian people. The Iranians, Russians, Americans and others are going to be running the show, while deals are likely to be struck in backrooms. George Sabra, leader of the opposition Syrian National Council, has criticised what he views as misguided diplomacy. “Syria is experiencing a democratic revolution that is trying to free the country from a tyrannical regime. It is not a civil war. And the Geneva Conference must not reduce this conflict to a power-sharing formula. It must not allow the murderers to walk away with a piece of the pie,” he said. To substitute the Al-Assad regime with a hybrid one, a mix of old and new, with the old regime still having a say in the affairs of the country, would be a great mistake, Sabra said. Haytham Manna, the NCCDC deputy leader, was in favour of attending Geneva 2, however. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Manna said that it would be wrong to discredit the conference as cosmetic. “The conference is going to be a tough surgical operation, much tougher than armed battle. Instead of refusing to go, we should prepare the ground for it. We have to create the circumstances that will make the majority of Syrians, whether refugees or displaced, armed or unarmed, believe that they can move on to something that is better than the present situation,” he said. Manna advised the opposition to demand that no arms should be sent to Syria and that humanitarian needs should be attended to. “When we say that we will go to Geneva 2 without conditions, this only means that we are not adding more conditions to those contained in the Geneva 1 Declaration. This is our starting point,” Manna said. In June 2012, the major powers issued a declaration calling for the formation of an interim government in Syria with full executive powers. The declaration was silent about whether Al-Assad would have any future role, a point that has dogged the talks every since. The Islamists, including the Nusra Front, the Army of Islam, and the Eagles of Syria, are boycotting the conference. Their position, many believe, will also trigger a host of problems down the line. For now, the regime seems determined to stay in power no matter what, and if it plays its cards right its allies in Russia, Lebanon and Iraq may yet find the opportunity to prolong its life. The future of Syria is no longer hinging just on the local agenda. Instead, the outcome of a settlement and its timing are likely to depend on a range of hotly debated international and regional issues: the Russian-American rivalry, Iran's nuclear programme, Iraq's sectarian conflicts, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry and the Arab-Israeli conflict, among others. The regime is hoping that its crimes will be camouflaged by the divisive rhetoric that is now flooding in from all sides. Syria's chances of moving forward do not seem to be promising as a result. With divisions among the regime's opponents, rivalries among the international players, and the threat of fanaticism permeating the armed resistance, the odds are not in favour of peace and stability anytime soon.
