The ongoing war in Syria has thus far ended in a draw, with neither the opposition receiving the kind of decisive aid that would carry it to victory, nor the regime being able to muster the kind of resources that would allow it to quell its opponents. Meanwhile, the Americans and the Russians are pressing ahead with an international conference, the so-called Geneva II, that no one seems to be excited about. Some powerful military groups have said that not only are they unwilling to go to Geneva, but that they will consider anyone who does to be a “traitor”. Over the past two months, the Americans and the Russians have agreed on several issues in the region. Dismantling Syria's chemical weapons has been one, and addressing Iran's controversial nuclear programme has been another. But when it comes to Geneva II, the jury is still out. Thus far, the conference seems to be a journey in uncharted waters, with little promise of dry land at the end. Washington, at last convinced that in thorny regional issues it takes two to arrive at any real solution, has been allowing Moscow to take the lead. Busy with a range of domestic issues, US President Barack Obama knows that the Americans — averse to a repetition of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq — have had enough of foreign adventures. So far, Moscow has bullied the regime led by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad into attending the conference, and Washington has told its allies in Syria that they would do well to attend the conference also. However, while some optimistic voices have been raised from among the ranks of the Syrian opposition, these have been far from unanimous. Often the optimism feels contrived, almost an admission that other courses of action are no longer open. Some in the opposition have been trying to reassure themselves that Geneva II will spell the end of the dictatorship in Syria. But most Syrians are too tired and disheartened to share this view. Louay Safi, spokesman for the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), mentioned certain guarantees that Washington and Moscow seem to have given to the opposition. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Safi said that “we agreed to attend Geneva II only after Russia signed memoranda of understanding with the US in which it committed itself to forming an interim governing authority with full powers in Syria.” This agreement would be binding on the regime, he said. “The regime cannot possibly break free from this agreement except by challenging both the Russians and the Americans,” Safi added. This was the first time that the Syrian opposition has mentioned guarantees from the US and Russia concerning the interim government. Abdel-Rahman Al-Haj, a high-ranking figure in the opposition Syrian National Council, was more sceptical. Speaking to the Weekly, Al-Haj said that “although we agree with the Russians that Geneva I [the former conference] should be the basis for negotiations for Geneva II, there is still a lot that we need to discuss, including the fate of Al-Assad.” Bending to pressure from Washington and Moscow, the NCSROF seems to have dropped a lot of its reservations on Geneva II. It no longer speaks of Al-Assad stepping down, of prisoners being released, or of humanitarian supplies being delivered, for example. This change of heart is no doubt related to the firmer stance of Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has made it clear that the peace conference will be held “with those willing to attend”. So staying out of Geneva, the NCSROF must have thought, would not be a viable option. Those who stay out of the conference will be seen as obstructing a solution and will be blamed for any further instability in the country. Yet, there has been no sign thus far that the Syrian regime is willing to give up power. It is not willing to discuss the fate of Al-Assad, has made no sign that it will give up control of the army and security forces, and does not seem eager to start an interim process that may lead to its ouster. More likely, once in Geneva, the regime will ask the opposition to help it fight the “terrorists” in Syria, the name it reserves for the jihadist groups that are among its fiercest military adversaries. When the future of Syria is open for discussion, the regime will also insist on keeping the state secular and banning religious parties, a request which is bound to divide the opposition's ranks. A major part of the Syrian political and military opposition is made up of religious-leaning groups, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, the Geneva II Conference also has strong opponents. Some of Syria's prominent military groups, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Islamic Front, have said they will stay away, and they have threatened those who do go to Geneva with punishment for “treason”. Even if the opposition and the regime strike a deal in Geneva, with the major military opposition groups opposed to the deal there will be no way of enforcing it. Some say that it will be possible to “dry up” the sources of weapons and finance for the militias fighting in Syria today. However, this may be wishful thinking, as many of these militias have amassed enough money and arms to fight for years. The opposition's dream of democracy and freedom in Syria is not one that a single deal in Geneva can bring home. More likely, a deal will only bring another round of recrimination and infighting all round. Paradoxically, it is also the regime that feels the least pressure at the moment. Since he promised to allow Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons to be dismantled, Al-Assad seems to be attracting a lot less international criticism than was the case previously. Al-Assad now warns that no talks will be successful as longs as his enemies continue to receive weapons from abroad. Regime forces also seem to be gaining more confidence with help from Iran and Shia fighters from Lebanon and Iraq. The hope for a solution at the Geneva II Conference is also being undermined by the fact that many of the countries involved in Syria do not seem to be able to agree on an acceptable compromise to end the fighting. Without a strong will for peace on all sides, there is no hope for a political settlement. Not only are Moscow and Washington of divergent opinions on the future of Syria, but Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are still hoping to turn things in Syria in their advantage. International officials, aware of the dire consequences of a protracted conflict in the country, have been warning that failure in Geneva will spell disaster for Syria and the region. Lavrov has warned that the failure of Geneva II will lead to the creation of an “extremist regime” that would pose a threat to Syria and the region. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Bogdanov has also said that failure will lead to the “complete destruction of Syria.” Jeffrey Feltman, UN under-secretary for political affairs, said that failure would allow “Al-Assad a chance to run for president once more”. Former NATO secretary-general Javier Solana warned that failure would be “catastrophic.” Nevertheless, in Syria there are some who believe that the conference may not be held at all. Fahd Al-Masri, spokesman for the joint command of the FSA and the revolutionary forces, said that Geneva II would not be held “despite the international announcements to the contrary”. Speaking to the Weekly, Al-Masri said that “Al-Assad doesn't want a political solution. What he wants is for the opposition to capitulate.” Al-Masri said that opposition military commanders could no longer give their backing to the “political opposition”, which they do not see as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people”. Instead, the military commanders from the FSA intend to cooperate with military commanders who have worked for the regime “but have no blood on their hands” to form a joint presidential council, Al-Masri announced. This presidential council would be formed of civilians backed by military leaders. The political opposition groups would then be invited to form an “interim parliament” to write a new constitution for the country and to bring about national reconciliation, Al-Masri stated.
