The stated goal of Geneva II, and the reason for the American insistence on holding it at any cost, is to find a political solution that leads to the end of Assad's regime and to a peaceful transition of power through a transitional governing body.
This transitional government is to be formed by both the regime and the opposition and will be responsible for overseeing the holding of free elections through which Syrian people will choose the future government.
This all seems attractive and encouraging at first, but is the reality and nature of both parties conducive to such a solution? Are the sponsors of Geneva trying to convince us that if both parties accepted going to Geneva, it means that the discussions will become serious and the negotiations will become logical and dependent on the legal and diplomatic skills of each party?
The truth is that the solution lies somewhere else, somewhere far away from those sitting in Geneva today. Is it naive to think that Faisal al-Mekdad or Walid al-Mouallem or any other member in regime's delegation came to Geneva to accept the departure of Assad and to sign an agreement that allows the destruction of the regime that killed a quarter of a million Syrians, and displaced and tortured millions of them? Is it naive also to think that Syrian National Coalition's delegation use of legal excuses and political skills may convince its counterpart of the rights of Syrian people for freedom and dignity – the rights deserved by any human being? Is it possible that Walid Mouallem will discover how wrong his regime was because it didn’t look at these laws before it killed, arrested and displaced all these people?
Let us be more serious; the true governors of Syria are not there in Geneva. The military forces controlling the liberated areas – and those actually able to put any agreement into practice are also not in Geneva.
There is no sign of any international will to stop the massacre against Syrian people. If the Russians or Americans wanted to stop it, they would not have insisted on holding the conference the way it is now; that is, negotiations aimed at wasting time, not finding solutions.
Everybody knows that Bashar Assad and the mafia surrounding him cannot resist an international resolution under Chapter VII of the U.N. Security Council to enforce a political solution in Syria. Everybody knows that the Russian and Chinese have kept the regime in power until now.
On the other hand, the Coalition's delegation to Geneva is dependent on regional and western political and financial support, so why don’t the sponsors of Geneva go to the Security Council to enforce both parties to accept the terms of Geneva I to save Syria from blood and destruction? Even if their interpretations of these terms are different, why don’t they sit and agree on one interpretation? Then each party could convince or force his allies to accept the final result.
I am sorry to admit this painful fact, but the decision of both parties at the hands of their supporters and Geneva sponsors are disrespectful of the Syrian people. Does U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford really expect that the regime will accept – especially through negotiations- the formation of a transitional governing body without Assad? Is he really convinced that this regime is able to be subjected to gradual destruction? Do we need extraordinary intelligence to realize that the regime and Assad's family and his security forces are inseparable and that cutting the head of the regime will make it all collapse?
Or is it merely the goal of the conference to distract international public opinion and Syrians from the tragedy going on in Syria and to cover the failure of the international community, especially what is called "the free world", in stopping the massacres commited by Assad against his own people?
Is it the case that this community benefits from exhausting the financial and military resources of Iran and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda on the other, at the expense of Syrians' blood? Is this really why they are not in a hurry to stop the destruction of the country and the murders against people?