By Abdullah Ghadawi
(Zaman Al Wasl)- Members of the opposition's negotiating committee disagree among themselves about how to evaluate the results of the fourth round of the Geneva Peace Talks. The disparity in their positions appeared clearly as some consider the talks resembled those that preceded it and others who see in these talks a breakthrough.
The more optimistic in this round was the delegation president Naser al-Hariri whose enthusiasm remained constant throughout the discussions. He appeared “happy” at the final press conference since the transitional stage entered the negotiation agenda for the first time.
For the Syrian population, however, there is no hope in these international and regional charades. For Syrians, the goal is one, and all Syrians know it: the al-Assad rule must end, and until then do not speak to them about anything else.
The situation has changed radically since December 2015 as Aleppo has been lost, Wadi Barada fell, and the regime is burning Idlib and al-Waer. Despite all these differences some politicians still spoke about the political transition with a regime that is becoming more violent and brutal as the world turns it back to the Syrian people.
Zaman al-Wasl asked several opposition figures to describe the Geneva Talks in one sentence to gain an understanding of their opinions of the talks. Fayez Sara, an opposition figure, described the talks as, “Russian success and the fall of all the rest,” expressing the painful situation the opposition has reached. Negotiation delegation member Fouad Alaiko commented, “pointless” dealing a blow of realism to add to the pains of the Syrian revolution. Essam al-Reis, the speaker for Southern Front forces, said of the fourth round of talks, “I do not have an appropriate name at the moment.” Only Ibrahim al-Jabawi, the manager of the Syrian Media Association, showed optimism and saw that the negotiation delegation demonstrated their staunch dedication to the revolutionary line.
However, the real question that faces the opposition and the Syrian revolution is who the winners and losers of the Geneva 4 Talks are?
In Geneva 3, one year ago, various countries pleaded with the High Negotiations Committee to attend the meetings in Geneva. The opposition went accompanied by military factions that controlled land and forces that were formidable enemies to the regime and Iranian militias. The opposition repeated its demand that al-Assad leaves in corridors. Riad Hijab, the head of the High Negotiation Committee, threatened that he would not attend the talks. His threat garnered the opposition promises that aid would be allowed into besieged cities and the regime would be pressured to stop the massacres. Most of these promises were unfulfilled, but the promises symbolized the opposition’s international weight. The promises signified the consideration the Americans and Europeans afforded it. It was a time when the factions in Aleppo and the north, and the Southern Front were stronger.
The Geneva 4 Talks presented a much more pessimistic scene for the revolution.
The Cairo and Moscow Platforms attended as equals to the High Negotiation Committee. The fighters were broken after losing Aleppo and Wadi Barada. The Talks included new political discourse about “baskets,” new political philosophies (1+3), and most markedly there was no discussion of al-Assad leaving. The opposition flirted with Russia and presented Russia as a mediator able to pressure the regime while Russian air strikes on Idlib were underway. In the meantime, flights to Astana do not stop, and each military delegation returns “tricked” with promises to bring them back into the conference halls as the regime forces continue to advance on the ground.
In the political balance, it does not seem like the opposition is doing well. The Europeans have escaped the Syrian nightmare, the Turks are exhausted with destroying the People’s Protection Units, the Friends of Syria Group is completely absent, and American President Donal Trump is busy with wiretappings in the White House. The Russians have filled the vacuum, taking the lead with the Syrian file.
The Russians sold the Syrian people an illusion by putting the transitional phase clause into the discussion agenda. The issue is not the talks or the agenda, but who will force the regime to execute the transitional phase; when and how will this transitional phase begin. The regime refused the transitional governance committee when it was as strong as the factions, so why will the regime accept the committee when the factions are weak, and the faction commanders addicted to travel and meetings.
All actors are fleeing the Syrian hell, and the opposition must deal with the situation from this basis. No one respects the negotiations, but they do respect power. They created the opposition when the factions were roaming and taking apart regime headquarters, and today in the opposition’s moment of weakness no one will hand them the gift of the transitional governance committee or the promise of al-Assad leaving; let alone present these to them on a plate of gold. The revolution started based on the principle the al-Assad regime must go, and when this is no longer the revolution’s goal, then the revolution has reached its final chapter.
(Zaman Al Wasl)- Members of the opposition's negotiating committee disagree among themselves about how to evaluate the results of the fourth round of the Geneva Peace Talks. The disparity in their positions appeared clearly as some consider the talks resembled those that preceded it and others who see in these talks a breakthrough.
The more optimistic in this round was the delegation president Naser al-Hariri whose enthusiasm remained constant throughout the discussions. He appeared “happy” at the final press conference since the transitional stage entered the negotiation agenda for the first time.
For the Syrian population, however, there is no hope in these international and regional charades. For Syrians, the goal is one, and all Syrians know it: the al-Assad rule must end, and until then do not speak to them about anything else.
The situation has changed radically since December 2015 as Aleppo has been lost, Wadi Barada fell, and the regime is burning Idlib and al-Waer. Despite all these differences some politicians still spoke about the political transition with a regime that is becoming more violent and brutal as the world turns it back to the Syrian people.
Zaman al-Wasl asked several opposition figures to describe the Geneva Talks in one sentence to gain an understanding of their opinions of the talks. Fayez Sara, an opposition figure, described the talks as, “Russian success and the fall of all the rest,” expressing the painful situation the opposition has reached. Negotiation delegation member Fouad Alaiko commented, “pointless” dealing a blow of realism to add to the pains of the Syrian revolution. Essam al-Reis, the speaker for Southern Front forces, said of the fourth round of talks, “I do not have an appropriate name at the moment.” Only Ibrahim al-Jabawi, the manager of the Syrian Media Association, showed optimism and saw that the negotiation delegation demonstrated their staunch dedication to the revolutionary line.
However, the real question that faces the opposition and the Syrian revolution is who the winners and losers of the Geneva 4 Talks are?
In Geneva 3, one year ago, various countries pleaded with the High Negotiations Committee to attend the meetings in Geneva. The opposition went accompanied by military factions that controlled land and forces that were formidable enemies to the regime and Iranian militias. The opposition repeated its demand that al-Assad leaves in corridors. Riad Hijab, the head of the High Negotiation Committee, threatened that he would not attend the talks. His threat garnered the opposition promises that aid would be allowed into besieged cities and the regime would be pressured to stop the massacres. Most of these promises were unfulfilled, but the promises symbolized the opposition’s international weight. The promises signified the consideration the Americans and Europeans afforded it. It was a time when the factions in Aleppo and the north, and the Southern Front were stronger.
The Geneva 4 Talks presented a much more pessimistic scene for the revolution.
The Cairo and Moscow Platforms attended as equals to the High Negotiation Committee. The fighters were broken after losing Aleppo and Wadi Barada. The Talks included new political discourse about “baskets,” new political philosophies (1+3), and most markedly there was no discussion of al-Assad leaving. The opposition flirted with Russia and presented Russia as a mediator able to pressure the regime while Russian air strikes on Idlib were underway. In the meantime, flights to Astana do not stop, and each military delegation returns “tricked” with promises to bring them back into the conference halls as the regime forces continue to advance on the ground.
In the political balance, it does not seem like the opposition is doing well. The Europeans have escaped the Syrian nightmare, the Turks are exhausted with destroying the People’s Protection Units, the Friends of Syria Group is completely absent, and American President Donal Trump is busy with wiretappings in the White House. The Russians have filled the vacuum, taking the lead with the Syrian file.
The Russians sold the Syrian people an illusion by putting the transitional phase clause into the discussion agenda. The issue is not the talks or the agenda, but who will force the regime to execute the transitional phase; when and how will this transitional phase begin. The regime refused the transitional governance committee when it was as strong as the factions, so why will the regime accept the committee when the factions are weak, and the faction commanders addicted to travel and meetings.
All actors are fleeing the Syrian hell, and the opposition must deal with the situation from this basis. No one respects the negotiations, but they do respect power. They created the opposition when the factions were roaming and taking apart regime headquarters, and today in the opposition’s moment of weakness no one will hand them the gift of the transitional governance committee or the promise of al-Assad leaving; let alone present these to them on a plate of gold. The revolution started based on the principle the al-Assad regime must go, and when this is no longer the revolution’s goal, then the revolution has reached its final chapter.
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.