It is perhaps too early to sound the death knell for Geneva II, the conference that aspires to end the Syrian crisis, but it is tempting. Speaking at the opening session of the conference, Ahmad Jerba, head of the National Syrian Coalition for the Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NSCROF), said that time was at a premium. But the modest accomplishment of the first round of talks reinforced doubt that the negotiators' time will be well spent. Foreign Minister Walid Muallem offered the official line that recasts the conflict in Syria as one between the government and terrorists, not one in which a nation strives for freedom and democracy. According to Muallem, the essence of the Syrian issue is terror, and the solution to the crisis is in fighting terrorists. This is not something that Jerba agrees with. Speaking for most of the Syrian opposition, the NSCROF leader said that the Syrians were fighting for freedom against a determined and murderous regime. He said that the answer is democracy and justice, possible only through regime change. The conference organisers, playing it safe, made due references to the final statement of Geneva I, which calls for the formation of an interim governing body to run the country and introduce the necessary changes. Minister Muallem made it clear that Al-Assad's departure was out of the question. He also rejected the idea of an interim governing body, although it is central to the final statement of Geneva I — a statement that was endorsed by his government. If the current negotiations don't end abruptly with one side storming out in indignation, which remains to be a possibility, they may drag on for months. For now, talks focus on matters of a secondary nature, such as the delivery of food and medicine to central Homs, and the release of a few thousands of detainees, from a total of about 150,000. Starting with the easy topics was the idea of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who is trying to get the two sides talking at all costs. So, even while the secondary issues are being brought to the fore, the question on everybody's mind is whether Geneva II can make a breakthrough towards democracy and regime change. For now, the two sides seem to be at loggerheads. The regime's delegation is adamant that Al-Assad should remain in power. Meanwhile, the opposition is determined that Al-Assad cannot have a role in determining the country's future. Is there a compromise between the two positions, one that gives both sides a semblance of victory, while paving the way for gradual change? So far, the odds that this may happen are not too good. Everyone is waiting to see what the Russians and Americans will do. But Moscow and Washington are keeping their cards close to their chest. At one point, the two powers may find a way of pressuring both sides into a reconciliatory formula, but for now, the Russians and Americans are doing more listening than talking. Some Syrians believe that the sponsors of the conference are capable of putting significant pressure on the regime, so as to enforce a regime change, even if in a gradual manner. Others argue that Russia doesn't have enough of a say in Syrian affairs, not when Iran has thrown its full political and military weight behind Al-Assad. If so, the chances for success in Geneva II are almost nil, for the regime — buoyed by its recent military success — is in no mood to compromise. Opposition writer Ali Al-Abdallah doesn't rule out a compromise settlement, but is disappointed by the lack of decisiveness by the sponsors. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, Al-Abdallah said: “In fact, we are facing an ambiguous situation. The Russians and the Americans met repeatedly behind closed doors and are not sharing their thoughts.” If the Russians and Americans have a solution in mind, they are keeping it a secret for now. “It is also possible they haven't agreed on anything and are playing it by ear,” he stated. Mundhir Khaddam, spokesman for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC), which hasn't been invited to the conference, said that neither the regime nor the opposition would get what they want out of this conference. Speaking to the Weekly, Khaddam said: “No one will get all they want, as the conference is held in a situation that accentuates the international aspect of the Syrian crisis. Syria has become a battleground for international account-settling.” Khaddam urged the opposition to hold on to its demand that the country should move on to democracy in an orderly fashion. Marawan Habash, former minister and current opposition figure, said that Geneva II cannot succeed if its only purpose is to form an interim governing body. Speaking to the Weekly, Habash said: “The conference can only reach an outcome if the sponsors of the conference, and the regional powers involved in the Syrian dossiers, act in a firm manner.” Habash added that the conference is likely to run into snags before reaching its presumed goal, which is to launch an interim phase leading to democracy. Riyad Darar, a moderate Islamist and member of the NCCDC, believes that Russia and the US are conspiring against the Syrians. Speaking to the Weekly, Darar said: “Russia and the US have an agenda which they had agreed on, and it is not an agenda that meets the aspirations of the Syrians.” According to Darar, Moscow and Washington are waiting for the conference to fail before they step in and impose certain policies on those involved. “They want to exhaust everyone before coming up with an alternative,” he stated. Louay Safi, spokesman for the NSCROF, is still hopeful that talks will end in the removal of Al-Assad's regime. Speaking to the Weekly, Safi said: “If the international community sticks by Geneva I ... this will lead to the defeat of tyranny and the victory of the people.” If Geneva II fails, is there another way of addressing the Syrian crisis? According to Al-Abdallah, the options are narrowing. “For the time being, there is no practical alternative,” he said. “We must negotiate in a cohesive manner and without giving up any of the main demands of the revolution.” Khaddam, for his part, argues that the only solution to the Syrian crisis is through political means. If Geneva II fails, then perhaps Geneva III or Geneva IV will succeed, he remarked. “Syria has become a burden for itself, the region, and the world. I believe that all parties have something to gain from resolving its crisis. If this conference were to fail, there will be a Geneva III or Geneva IV, until the crisis is resolved,” Khaddam said. But the price of immediate failure, in terms of human suffering, will be “too high”, Khaddam added. The Syrian government is clearly not in a hurry to find a way out of the current crisis. Minister Muallem said that he can “inundate the international community with details”.
