Russian officials said this week that they were willing to host a conference in Moscow to find a settlement to the Syrian crisis. But members of the Syrian opposition have scoffed at the idea, saying that Moscow is too partial to the regime led by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to qualify as a credible host of any peace talks. The Russians offered to invite representatives from the Syrian opposition and the regime for dialogue in Moscow in preparation for holding a conference in the Russian capital. But Moscow's insistence that the talks should be without “preconditions” is likely to undermine the proposal, and though the Syrian opposition is not opposed to talks, members say that any deal should lead to a fully-empowered interim government in which the incumbent president and his top aides play no part. In private talks with opposition members, including a former leader of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), the Russians said that they were not against Al-Assad leaving office, but would prefer to see him remain during the early phases of the transitional period. However, the Russian formula is not new, and it has consistently been opposed by the Syrian opposition for the past three years. The only thing that is new is that Moscow now seems more intent on finding a solution than in the past. It may also hope that the Syrian opposition, exhausted by the protracted conflict, may be more amenable to old proposals than it was earlier. Nevertheless, reaction among the Syrian opposition to the Russian proposal has mostly been one of disdain, it having no reason to trust Moscow whose continued support for Al-Assad has been instrumental in prolonging the crisis. Privately, the Russians have been telling opposition members that the presence of Al-Assad in office is immaterial to them, but this view has never been expressed in public. The Russian position from Moscow's public statements so far seems to be that Al-Assad's fate should be decided through negotiations between the regime and the opposition. These should set the stage for a transitional phase during which a government comprising representatives of both sides should run the country. The security and military apparatus would be altered to allow for the merger of armed opposition members into the army, thus strengthening the latter's chances to combat terrorism. At a later stage, a new constitution could be written, setting the stage for elections in which Al-Assad would in principle be entitled to run. This approximate summary of the Russian position is what the opposition finds unacceptable, insisting that any deal must exclude Al-Assad and his close associates from power. Over the past few years Moscow has done little to endear itself to the Syrian opposition, antagonising it through its repeated vetoes that have prevented the UN Security Council from condemning the regime for its human rights violations and war crimes. The regime has now been pleased to see the Russians offering to sponsor a deal as a way out of the crisis, believing that the prospect of mediation by Moscow could not only prolong its life, but also allow the incumbent president to remain in office after the guns fall silent. Syria's domestic opposition, the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC), snapped at the Russian proposal. NCCDC spokesman Munzir Khaddam said that his group had not received an invitation for talks and had no information about the Russian offer. “We haven't received any invitation from Moscow, and we don't know if the Russians have an initiative to start with,” he said. “But we cannot agree to dialogue with the regime unless it conforms to the final statement of the Geneva Conference.” Dismissing the possibility of a breakthrough, Khaddam said that “I don't think the Russians are about to change their well-known position.” The Geneva final statement, approved by the major powers in June 2012, calls for a ceasefire, the release of all detainees, and an interim government with full power to rewrite the constitution and call for new elections. The NCSROF, which is based abroad, also dismissed the Russian initiative as “irrelevant,” with Aqqab Yahya, a member of the NCSROF Political Bureau, saying that Russia needed to revise its support for Al-Assad. “Russia is a major country and an active player in the Syrian crisis. But we want the Russians to understand that they have to rethink their position on Al-Assad's future,” Yahya said. The minorities in Syria has also been sceptical. Jamil Diyarbakrilli, a Christian and a member of the Assyrian opposition, said that Moscow, for all its rhetoric about minority rights, had done little to help Christians in Syria. “Russia did nothing when IS extremists drove the Christians of Deir Al-Zor and Raqqa from their homes, or when the regime handed villages to the extremists,” he said. NCSROF member Munzir Aqbiq said that Moscow was too close to the regime to be trusted. “Russia wants to maintain the Syrian regime, and it is also attached to Al-Assad himself. I don't think that any of the opposition abroad will agree to a deal that keeps Al-Assad and his clique in power,” Aqbiq said. Russia is eager to see the conflict in Syria end. The more it drags on, the more Russia finds itself at odds with the Western powers and at risk of militant Islam finding its way to its own soil. With Ukraine already in turmoil, Moscow would be pleased to see an end to the Syrian debacle. But there is no sign that Moscow is ready to do what it takes for this to happen, which is to recognise that Al-Assad cannot be part of any future solution in Syria. As a result, in its current form the Russian initiative is unlikely to lead anywhere except to more ambivalence and frustration.
