January 22, 2014 has been named as the date for the new Geneva peace conference on Syria, but the agenda, make-up of the opposition delegation and list of countries to be invited still remain tentative.
“We will go to Geneva with a mission of hope,” said United
Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who thanked Russia and the
US for helping bring both sides to the negotiating tables despite
months of mounting obstacles, following the Geneva Communiqué
which outlined the framework for the peace conference as far back
as June 2012.
“The conflict in Syria has raged for too long. It would be
unforgivable not to seize this opportunity to bring an end to the
suffering and destruction it has caused.”
But with dates for potential conferences having been named
several times before, only to be torpedoed by one of the parties
or a development in the civil war, a degree of skepticism is in
order until all sides have boarded the plane to Geneva.
The government of Bashar Assad says it agrees to participate
“in principle”, but says there is no way the president
will resign as a part of any negotiation, and insists he will run
in any election that follows the civil war that has resulted in
well over 100,000 deaths.
It also dismisses the legitimacy of the opposition, continuously
referring to its opponents, who have recently suffered
significant military setbacks, as “terrorists”.
“We are facing terrorism, confronting terrorism on behalf of the
entire world,” Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told the
Financial Times in Damascus in the wake of Ban’s announcement.
On the other hand, the opposition has officially demanded that it
will participate in the talks only if “the Assad Regime and
those associated with him will have no role in the transitional
period and future Syria.”
This stance was endorsed last month by the London 11 – the US and
leading EU and Sunni Arab powers – who said that those “whose
hands are stained with blood”, namely Assad, cannot lead the
country in the future. The position is not likely to have any
truck with the current regime in Damascus.
Besides, even if any compromise satisfactory to both parties were
to be reached in Geneva at the beginning of next year, it is not
clear how it would affect the course of the war, which has
reached status quo after more than 30 months of fighting.
"Opposition political delegations do not have any power or
influence on the Syrian street," said Fahed Al-Masri, a
spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, the leading anti-government
military group.
"As the Syrian street does not recognize them, it would be
impossible for them to be able to commit to anything, much less
fulfil any pledges."
In fact, even forming a delegation that would represent the
fractured opposition – that ranges from pro-democratic secular
moderates to Wahhabi radicals - would seem an uphill task. Even
before the deadly chemical attack in Damascus this summer, which
broadened the fissure in Syrian society, the opposition struggled
to nominate its representatives.
But instead of bringing the two direct negotiators closer in
their position, much of the energy before January is likely to be
expended on deciding who else should be propping up the parties
on either side.
The United States was earlier vehemently opposed to Iran, Syria’s
close Shi’ite ally, participating in the talks, while Russia has
insisted that it be included. The recently concluded deal between
Tehran and the world’s leading powers on its nuclear program
could open the door to Iranian representation, though no side has
confirmed anything.
"We haven't established a list yet,” said international envoy
Lakhdar Brahimi, who has been instrumental in setting up the
talks, when asked about Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s participation,
though he named both countries as “possible” candidates.
Saudi Arabia, which has been the principal sponsor of rebel
fighters and opposes Assad and Iran on sectarian lines, has been
openly dismissive of the prospects of an effective peace
conference, and has demonstratively urged the West to take firmer
action.
The apprehension over the imminent summit was also expressed in
the cautious statements from its main proponents Russia and the
US, with US Secretary of State John Kerry saying "that the
obstacles on the road to a political solution are many” and
that his country would enter the talks “with our eyes wide
open.