Orkhan Sattarov. Exclusively to VK
The Geneva conference on the Group of Actions on Settlement of the Syrian Crisis came to an end – according to the comments, it was not successful. However, it cannot be called ineffective. The final document states a series of certain steps, for example, establishing a transitional government in Syria. Nevertheless, the vagueness of some statements enables the West, Damascus, and Russia to maneuver and imagine. That is why understanding of the further fate of Bashar Assad is different in the West and Russia diplomatic circles. The fact is that the West coalition didn’t manage to lobby necessity of Assad’s resignation. And the German edition Spiegel clearly stated on “failure of the West in Geneva.”
It is too early to speak about “failure” or “victory” of any interested side in this issue. One fact is obvious – the Geneva forum prolonged the period of vagueness in the Syrian crisis. On the one hand, it gives a certain time resource to the regime in Damascus. At the same time, this gap will hardly enable Bashar Assad to turn the tide in his favor.
Nevertheless, diplomatic flexibility of the final statements make the sides understand them as they want, and that only increases ambiguity. For example, the text says that “all groups and segments of the society in Syria should have an opportunity to take part in the process of the national dialogue. This process should be not only wide-scaled, but also meaningful, i.e. its results should be fulfilled in reality.” But is it possible to provide participation of “all segments of the Syrian society” in the dialogue, considering the fact Assad and rebels do not want to talk to each other? Moreover, Bashar Assad won’t refuse from his power. At the same time, the opposition demands complete elimination of the Assad clan from the political life. Either Assad or the opposition has a significant amount of supporters. And they are the main confronting sides. We can only guess what the way out of the dead-end would be. Probably the West will promote the scenario according to which “the start of the national dialogue” will be impossible under Assad as the president. The Syrian opposition supported by foreign forces has already hinted on it.
The other statement in the Geneva final protocol sounds dissonantly: “The transaction government will gain full executive power. It can include members of the current government and the opposition, as well as other groups; it should be composed according to a mutual agreement.” How can the transaction government be composed according to “a mutual agreement,” if the radical Syrian opposition stated ahead the Geneva forum that it rejects any plan which doesn’t presuppose resignation of Bashar Assad? This position was confirmed by the Syrian opposition activists after the talks of “the contact group” in Geneva. Despite some “positive elements” in the proposed plan of actions, in general it is unacceptable because it means participation of the ruling party in settlement of the conflict, the opposition thinks. Furthermore, the plan states no certain terms in settlement of the crisis, which is also unacceptable for the radical opposition.
Representatives of the inner armed opposition of Syria have declared on intention to boycott the Cairo conference of the Syrian opposition, RIA Novosti reported citing France Press. It is the statement of the management of so-called Syrian Free Army signed by “independent” opponents of President Assad also. “The meeting (in Cairo) will take place after alarming decisions have been made at the Geneva conference. They are aimed at maintaining the regime, setting the dialogue with it, and composing the coalition government with murderers of our children,” the rebels say. The representatives of the opposition accused participants of the Cairo conference of the fact they “reject any idea of military intervention aimed at salvation of the people.” “We reject any dialogue and negotiations (with Assad’s regime – editor’s note),” the statement says.
As Vestnik Kavkaza reported earlier the two-day conference in Cairo will begin on July 2. It was initiated by the League of Arabic States. About 250 representatives of various opposition groups and independent activists will take part in it. For example, Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian National Council, and the National Coordination Committee.
It might seem that the armed Syrian opposition united under so-called Syrian Free Army commits itself by the rejection of any negotiations. It is presented as a destructive element and indirectly strengthens diplomatic positions of Moscow and Beijing in negotiations on the Syrian issue. By isolation from the negotiation process it deprives itself of the opportunity to shift from military contradiction to the political struggle. At the same time, it shouldn’t be forgotten that SFA is a militarized structure consisting of soldiers and officers rather than politicians. Its “destructive role” might be a part of the scenario which is probably implemented in Syria by the West. By rejection of participation in the political dialogue SFA is free from possible agreements on ceasing fire. How can certain mechanisms of stopping violence suggested by the Foreign Minister of Russia Lavrov be fulfilled?
Probably the West sees SFA as an instrument of permanent pressure on Assad’s regime. At the same time it will initiate integration processes within very segmental political opposition of Syria. The leading role is given to the Syrian National Council. Its new head was invited to Moscow officially in the middle of July. It proves that the Kremlin appraises the increasing role of the SNC as one of the main systemic element of the Syrian opposition. However, it is too early to say that Moscow prepares for “giving away” Bashar Assad.
