UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi announced on Saturday that round two of peace talks in Geneva had ended with no success. Despite the fanfare about Geneva talks, we knew that the talks would fail for objective reasons. At the heart of the talks is the implementation of the Geneva I of June 2012, something that the Syrian regime is unlikely to consider. Not surprising, the sticking point was the Assad’s delegation’s refusal to discuss a transitional governing body to oversee the transitional period.
While no date has been set for a future round of talks, the picture cannot be more obvious. Assad is not expected to send a delegation to negotiate his departure. On the contrary, Assad sent the delegation to establish partnership with the West to fight terrorism. Meanwhile, his forces are still bombarding various neighborhoods of different cities in order to win the battle militarily.
Two days ago, the Syrian government went a step further. It added the opposition delegates at Geneva 2 to a “terrorist list” and confiscated their assets. This move is nothing but an insult to the opposition negotiators and their international supporters. Asked about the reasons for adding the National Coalition to the “terrorist list,” the Syrian government said: “This has nothing to do with the Geneva conference. Whoever refuses to fight terrorism is part of terrorism.”
Explicit in the regime’s behavior is that it will not budge as long as there is no price tag. Assad and his supporters — Hezbollah and Iran — understand that the balance of power on the ground is not favoring the opposition. Therefore, short of changing this balance of power, Assad will not implement Geneva I resolution.
To be sure, the United States has just begun to understand the need for a change in the balance of power on the ground should it hope for a better results. The impasse in Geneva talks has pushed the US to rethink its approach to the Syrian crisis. US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that Washington was looking for policy options on Syria. In Kerry’s words, President Obama “has asked all of us to think about various options that may or may not exist.”
Given the circumstances, Obama has no option but to consider another approach. Therefore, the reassessment of the policy on the Syrian crisis should send a clear message to Assad that he cannot continue with his current policy of buying time while trying to finish off the opposition. Perhaps, the US seeks to send another message to Assad’s allies in Moscow and Tehran. When the US says that there is no military solution to the conflict, it does not mean that changing the balance of power on the ground is not a policy option for Washington. Against this backdrop, one can understand the inclination of the US to send some weapons to the moderate elements of the opposition.
Meanwhile, other players in the region, especially the ones who are frustrated by the weakness of Obama, have unlocked arms supplies for the rebels.
In fact, the aerial bombardment of Aleppo has increased the number of victims to alarming rates. And there is no way of stopping this without neutralizing the Syrian air force. Sadly, the Syrian regime has been indifferent to the well being of the Syrian people. Ironically, Assad’s crackdown on Aleppo during the Geneva talks has been the bloodiest! In brief, it is hard to avoid the realization that ending the conflict entails a new escalation. In other words, providing the opposition with effective weapons can shorten the struggle and put the conflict to an end.
