Logo Wide

Geneva II: Negotiations or Theatre of Syrian Blood?

The failure of the Geneva talks should serve as a lesson for the opposition to redraw its strategy
Geneva II: Negotiations or Theatre of Syrian Blood?

Eighteen months ago, Russian, Chinese, American and European representatives met in Geneva. The Syrians were absent, but the participants at the  Geneva I conference still managed to reach an agreement to solve the Syrian crisis. Back then, they called it the Geneva Initiative, based on the initiative of Kofi Annan and his six points.


Back then, the Syrian National Council refused the initiative and the friends and allies of the Council didn't try to implement it.


The arbitrary support for different opposition factions continued, and many were convinced that the regime would not accept the terms of the initiative as long as believes itself able to end the revolution through the security solution.


In order to convince the regime to accept the initiative, there are three options:


Firstly, there should be a resolution from the U.N. Security Council to oblige both parties to accept the initiative.


Secondly, there should be an international alliance to deliver a clear message to the dictator and his mafia, clarifying that the Friends of the Syrian people will not accept the continuation of massacres against Syrians and they are ready to intervene to protect the civilians through no-fly zones.


Thirdly, there should be an effective armed opposition able to maintain the balance of power with the regime to oblige it to accept the political solution suggested at Geneva I. Thus, the Free Syrian Army which consists of defected soldiers and non-extremist volunteers should be provided with weapons.


Everybody supported the third option after the Russian and Chinese governments obstructed a resolution from the Security Council and the American administration didn’t want to get involved in an armed conflict.


Years after the formation of the Syrian National Coalition, it has become clear that we are far from achieving a balance between the Free Syrian Army and Assad's forces.


New organizations with different goals emerged, dominating the struggle and decreasing the role of the Free Syrian Army.


The regime succeeded in showing what happens as a civil war with a sectarian background; he used the same tactic in Lebanon and Iraqi. he uses Iranian militias to commit war crimes against Syrians, encouraging the extremist parties among the armed opposition forces to exhibit more violence.


The sponsors of Geneva and their intelligence agencies, their research centers and political analysts all knew this was happening, but made no efforts to stop it.


After failing to creating a realistic circumstances on the ground to make the regime accept the terms of Geneva I, more pressure has been put on the Coalition, forcing half its members to quit.



The Coalition went to Geneva II without other political and military forces. Its delegation had to face a strong regime, effectively supported by its allies, and a regime confident that America and its allies are not going to put a serious pressure to make him accept the minimum demands, such as releasing the detained women and children or breaking the siege around the besieged areas.


Will it be so strange if Geneva II fails? Isn’t it just play to pass the time to destroy Syrian chemical weapons, or to drain the power of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran at the expense of Syrian people and the future of their country? Neither the west, nor Israel or Russia will pay for this war.


This was a hard lesson, and every Syrian dreams of a unified and democratic state should benefit from the experience to redraw its strategy that can make their legitimate dream come true.


Translated and edited by The Syrian Observer


Helpful keywords