‘Unless the Assad problem is resolved…’

The second round of intra-Syrian talks is set to end today in Geneva with the government and Riyadh-sponsored opposition still sparring over the fate of President Bashar Assad.

The government continues to argue Assad’s presidency cannot be addressed while the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) insists he must stand down before the UN mandated transition period begins.

The government contends Assad is the legitimate president of Syria, elected to a seven-year term in 2014 by a majority of those still in the country in areas under government control.

By constantly demanding his departure the HNC has turned the “Syrian problem” into the “Assad problem”.

The Western media portray the situation as deadlock and blames Damascus while the HNC is just as responsible for the lack of progress.

The objective of Geneva III, the third course UN-mediated talks, is to secure government and opposition agreement on the formation of a transitional government that will oversee the drafting of a new constitution and elections that would usher in a new, hopefully democratic, system of governance.

If the plan is implemented as envisaged in UN resolutions, this process will, of course, amount to “regime change”. Little wonder the Baathists, who have ruled Syria for 53 years, are resisting, particularly since they cannot predict their future if and when Assad stands down.

The talks in Geneva, for them, amount to a struggle for survival and until the UN mediator and the outside powers take this into consideration, Damascus is likely to continue to cling to Assad.

The HNC is also in a bind.

A source close to this umbrella grouping of dissident opposition politicians, “revolutionaries” and paramilitary men told this correspondent they fear they could lose whatever support they have from external powers and Syrians if they compromise on Assad’s early — even instant — departure.

This, also, has to be recognised.

HNC spokesman Salim Al Meslet confirmed this assessment in an interview with this correspondent: “Assad must leave right away. We must have a new leadership. Our people will not accept if Assad stays.”

On the post-war period, he said: “We want him to go to the International Criminal Court [along with] anyone who commits crimes.”

The HNC does not want Assad or others tried in Syria in Syrian courts.

Meslet said “the army and intelligence services” would need restructuring but the Baath Party would not be outlawed, as it was in Iraq following the disastrous US occupation in 2003.

He stated: “We are not against any party but only those individuals involved in killing.”

Meslet said the HNC seeks to establish a “civil [secular], democratic state [where] all communities take part in decision making and share power”.

He argued that salafist militants signed the December 2015 Riyadh Declaration which provides for the “rule of civil law” rather than Muslim canon law, Sharia.

However, in an interview with The Guardian, HNC chief negotiator Muhammad Alloush contradicted Meslet on the issue of trials for members of the current government and military command.

He said they should be conducted in Syria by Syrian courts.

The interviewer did not tackle Alloush, politburo head of Saudi-fostered Jaish Al Islam, on the question of civil state and civil law.

Jaish Al Islam has called for Syria to become an “Islamic state” ruled by Sharia.

These two interviews demonstrate clearly that the HNC, regarded as the “main” opposition interlocutor in the intra-Syrian talks, remains a coalition of disparate and divided factions.

Among them are secular expatriate groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, dissident individuals and 30 of the hundreds of armed factions currently operating in Syria, the majority being salafist.

The HNC has been granted this status because it enjoys the patronage of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Europe. However, it has little popular support in Syria.

Although the HNC agreed to take part in this round of talks, militant members argued for departure after Russia began to withdraw its warplanes and troops supporting the government.

This faction thought the HNC should return to the battlefield rather than negotiate indirectly with the government.

The HNC remained in Geneva.

While the HNC has stuck to the “Assad must go now line” dictated by its Saudi and Turkish patrons, the US and some European powers suggested he could stay on for some time, perhaps even until August 2017 when elections are supposed to be held.

The status of the HNC as the “main” interlocutor is under challenge from independent opposition groupings, including the Women’s Advisory Council, composed of six women from Syria and six from the diaspora, the Kurds, who have been excluded at the instigation of Turkey, and civil society groups, that all enjoy some support in Syria.

While UN mediator Staffan de Mistura met with all except the Kurds, he has relegated these groups to second-class status.

The Cairo-Moscow group is a different sort of challenger. It adopts a moderate position towards Assad.

The Moscow component is headed by Qadri Jamil, a longtime communist who served briefly as deputy prime minister for economic affairs.

Seen as Moscow’s man, Jamil argues that Assad’s fate should be decided democratically by Syrians through elections.

His stance is in line with Moscow’s contention that Syrians, rather than outside powers, should determine who should rule Syria.

The Cairo component is represented in Geneva by defected Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi.

He told this correspondent that Cairo wants a democratic solution and “a serious, non-cosmetic transformation. A cosmetic solution would create another uprising... . A new Syrian system [must be built] on better foundations. [However], it is not logical for Assad to leave before the transition is completed. Our problem is not a problem of one person but of a system. We must rebuild the political system jointly with the loyalist camp”.

De Mistura should listen to the Cairo-Moscow group, which could become a bridge between the government and the HNC.

Unless the Assad problem is resolved, there can be no progress in the talks.