Even without allies, Syria�s opposition must keep going

The first priority is a ceasefire. After that, hopefully a reasonable political settlement can be achieved that will eventually bring the war to an end

The suspension of the latest round of talks in Geneva tells us that Syria is on a long and tough path to peace. The past two rounds of talks were doomed to failure from the start. This third round will require a lot more effort to keep it from suffering the same fate. For now, the talks are in limbo, with the UN’s special envoy Staffan de Mistura insisting that negotiations will resume at the end of the month.
This time around, if the talks keep arriving at a dead end, and no political solution can be achieved, then there will be no other alternative solution that can save Syria from a war that will drag on for years.
“It’s still not Friday morning in Geneva, so let’s give this a little bit more time.” These words, uttered by the US state department spokesman on the eve of the Geneva talks reflected the uncertainty and wishful thinking that surrounded the Syrian peace negotiations from the start. They also adequately describe the sentiment of Mr de Mistura as the talks were suspended this week.
Until the last minute, every-thing about the latest meeting in Geneva was vague and unpredictable. Delegations and decisions changed by the hour. Most analysts out there have not been optimistic about the outcome for several reasons. The opposition issued preconditions, the Turkish government issued threats to boycott the event, and the Syrian regime refused to concede anything to the opposition. From the start, it was impossible to expect any fruitful results.
Yet if these talks fail, it will have a serious effect on the ground.
From a humanitarian aspect, the failure to reach an immediate ceasefire will bring more tragedy to people living in those areas living under siege and heavy bombardment, where it is impossible for aid to reach.
It is noticeable that Bashar Al Assad has more support now than any other time during this whole conflict. With Russia backing him, the regime will have no problem dismissing or delaying any requests or demands, and continue its bombardment of areas claimed by rebels.
If that pattern continues, it could take many years with no guarantee of any solution that could actually be implemented on the ground. No-one in the region wants to see the Syrian process become like the Palestinian peace process.
In the past five years, the one demand the world has had of the Syrian opposition groups is that they stay united. Today, that still seems like a difficult goal to achieve.
The Assad regime and its supporters have taken advantage of this, claiming that the division among the opposition is proof of irresponsibility and a lack of serious intent.
The opposition forces must find a way to stay out of this trap. They must be clear-eyed about the challenges and about who they can and cannot trust.
First, they must continue to attend the talks even though the regime has turned a deaf ear to all their preconditions. Demands to stop the bombardment of civilians, to lift the siege of devastated areas and to allow humanitarian aid to enter affected areas have all been ignored. The regime’s latest advances on the ground, supported by Russian forces, and its recapturing of key towns and strategic areas has given it the confidence to turn down any opposition demands.
Still, it will be wise of the opposition to attend the negotiations when they reconvene, to lay their demands on the table and to show for all to see the unwillingness of the Assad regime to compromise.
At this point they are in a critical position and have almost no chance of winning in the field over a regime that is strongly backed by Russia. Therefore gambling on delaying the process until their demands are met is not to their advantage – especially as their supporters in other countries seem to have taken a step back in the process.
Look at the United States, which appears comfortable with the Russian approach and, indeed, has softened its stance on Assad leaving in order to accommodate Moscow.
Depending on the US for continuous support is not to the opposition’s advantage. The US is more focused on internal issues during this election year. Barack Obama has shown limited interest in interfering in Syria’s war – and he would probably rather keep it that way during his final days in office.
Simply put, the American position might not change for another year. I was once told by a member of the High Negotiations Committee: “It’s a cat-and-mouse game until a Republican president comes to power.” He added with certainty that “the Republicans are going to end the whole problem in a matter of weeks”. I asked him how, but he couldn’t answer.
Such a possibility seems remote, especially as the Republican front-runners don’t have a radically different policy from Mr Obama’s. If the opposition is gambling on a Republican president getting involved, then I’m confident a disaster is awaiting Syria.
Nor is Turkey a good partner for this round of peace talks. It does not like the way the process is playing out. The suggestion that the Kurdish Democratic Union party join the negotiations prompted it to threaten to withdraw.
Turkey has always considered the Kurdish parties to be allied with terrorists and to present almost as great a threat as Mr Al Assad.
My major concern is that Turkey will be an impediment to any process to end the war in Syria, if it feels Kurdish parties would benefit.
Therefore, the opposition should not rely on Turkey’s support.
Even the United Nations has been a weak link. Although the UN has tried tirelessly to implement resolutions and bring all sides to the table, it is impossible to believe that it has the ability to enforce any future political solution or peace deal that might come out of Geneva.
Who, then, can the opposition rely on? Their genuine allies are few at the moment.
But there is always a window of hope in any dark scenario. If Russia and the US commit to keep exerting serious pressure on both sides of the conflict, they may reach concessions.
The first priority is a ceasefire. After that, hopefully a reasonable political settlement can be achieved that will eventually bring the war to an end.
It won’t be easy, but years of division among the opposition groups have not contributed any answers.
As the saying goes,“it takes two to tango”. But in the Syrian dilemma, the audience is heavily involved in the dance. For the opposition, the only way is to be a committed partner – otherwise the dance cannot even start.

The writer is a Syrian activist and investigative journalist now living in Washington, DC

Even without allies, Syria�s opposition must keep going

The first priority is a ceasefire. After that, hopefully a reasonable political settlement can be achieved that will eventually bring the war to an end

The suspension of the latest round of talks in Geneva tells us that Syria is on a long and tough path to peace. The past two rounds of talks were doomed to failure from the start. This third round will require a lot more effort to keep it from suffering the same fate. For now, the talks are in limbo, with the UNs special envoy Staffan de Mistura insisting that negotiations will resume at the end of the month. This time around, if the talks keep arriving at a dead end, and no political solution can be achieved, then there will be no other alternative solution that can save Syria from a war that will drag on for years. Its still not Friday morning in Geneva, so lets give this a little bit more time. These words, uttered by the US state department spokesman on the eve of the Geneva talks reflected the uncertainty and wishful thinking that surrounded the Syrian peace negotiations from the start. They also adequately describe the sentiment of Mr de Mistura as the talks were suspended this week. Until the last minute, every-thing about the latest meeting in Geneva was vague and unpredictable. Delegations and decisions changed by the hour. Most analysts out there have not been optimistic about the outcome for several reasons. The opposition issued preconditions, the Turkish government issued threats to boycott the event, and the Syrian regime refused to concede anything to the opposition. From the start, it was impossible to expect any fruitful results. Yet if these talks fail, it will have a serious effect on the ground. From a humanitarian aspect, the failure to reach an immediate ceasefire will bring more tragedy to people living in those areas living under siege and heavy bombardment, where it is impossible for aid to reach. It is noticeable that Bashar Al Assad has more support now than any other time during this whole conflict. With Russia backing him, the regime will have no problem dismissing or delaying any requests or demands, and continue its bombardment of areas claimed by rebels. If that pattern continues, it could take many years with no guarantee of any solution that could actually be implemented on the ground. No-one in the region wants to see the Syrian process become like the Palestinian peace process. In the past five years, the one demand the world has had of the Syrian opposition groups is that they stay united. Today, that still seems like a difficult goal to achieve. The Assad regime and its supporters have taken advantage of this, claiming that the division among the opposition is proof of irresponsibility and a lack of serious intent. The opposition forces must find a way to stay out of this trap. They must be clear-eyed about the challenges and about who they can and cannot trust. First, they must continue to attend the talks even though the regime has turned a deaf ear to all their preconditions. Demands to stop the bombardment of civilians, to lift the siege of devastated areas and to allow humanitarian aid to enter affected areas have all been ignored. The regimes latest advances on the ground, supported by Russian forces, and its recapturing of key towns and strategic areas has given it the confidence to turn down any opposition demands. Still, it will be wise of the opposition to attend the negotiations when they reconvene, to lay their demands on the table and to show for all to see the unwillingness of the Assad regime to compromise. At this point they are in a critical position and have almost no chance of winning in the field over a regime that is strongly backed by Russia. Therefore gambling on delaying the process until their demands are met is not to their advantage especially as their supporters in other countries seem to have taken a step back in the process. Look at the United States, which appears comfortable with the Russian approach and, indeed, has softened its stance on Assad leaving in order to accommodate Moscow. Depending on the US for continuous support is not to the oppositions advantage. The US is more focused on internal issues during this election year. Barack Obama has shown limited interest in interfering in Syrias war and he would probably rather keep it that way during his final days in office. Simply put, the American position might not change for another year. I was once told by a member of the High Negotiations Committee: Its a cat-and-mouse game until a Republican president comes to power. He added with certainty that the Republicans are going to end the whole problem in a matter of weeks. I asked him how, but he couldnt answer. Such a possibility seems remote, especially as the Republican front-runners dont have a radically different policy from Mr Obamas. If the opposition is gambling on a Republican president getting involved, then Im confident a disaster is awaiting Syria. Nor is Turkey a good partner for this round of peace talks. It does not like the way the process is playing out. The suggestion that the Kurdish Democratic Union party join the negotiations prompted it to threaten to withdraw. Turkey has always considered the Kurdish parties to be allied with terrorists and to present almost as great a threat as Mr Al Assad. My major concern is that Turkey will be an impediment to any process to end the war in Syria, if it feels Kurdish parties would benefit. Therefore, the opposition should not rely on Turkeys support. Even the United Nations has been a weak link. Although the UN has tried tirelessly to implement resolutions and bring all sides to the table, it is impossible to believe that it has the ability to enforce any future political solution or peace deal that might come out of Geneva. Who, then, can the opposition rely on? Their genuine allies are few at the moment. But there is always a window of hope in any dark scenario. If Russia and the US commit to keep exerting serious pressure on both sides of the conflict, they may reach concessions. The first priority is a ceasefire. After that, hopefully a reasonable political settlement can be achieved that will eventually bring the war to an end. It wont be easy, but years of division among the opposition groups have not contributed any answers. As the saying goes,it takes two to tango. But in the Syrian dilemma, the audience is heavily involved in the dance. For the opposition, the only way is to be a committed partner otherwise the dance cannot even start. The writer is a Syrian activist and investigative journalist now living in Washington, DC