THE "SYRIAN DILEMMA"

Practically the whole of last week the attention of the world's media was focused on the Swiss town of Montreux on the shores of Lake Geneva, where the peace conference on Syria, which the media have called "Geneva-2", was being held. It was a fairly representative gathering: the authorities and leading opposition forces of Syria itself, as well as representatives of over 40 states who in one way or another have an interest in a solution to the Syrian crisis.

However, even the earliest, if one might use the term, preliminary stage of the conference - before the start of negotiations between representatives of the Syrian authorities and opposition as such - left no doubts that the discussions in Montreux promised to be more than acute.

But perhaps a little explanation is required here. On the surface, conferences are held in order to find a solution by way of broad discussion, official negotiations, meetings "on the margins", and so on. But in reality so-called "sherpas" - advisors, special envoys, and so on - start preparing agreements well before the official start of the representative forum. They are the ones who "sort out" the many contentious issues, "untie the knots", decide to leave something "for later" and concoct antiseptic and palatable concepts…

There was no such preliminary stage at "Geneva-2", and the line-up of participants was "sorted out" at literally the last moment. The moderate Syrian opposition had long since refused to attend the meeting, insisting that negotiations should only be held if al-Assad stood down. Bashar al-Assad himself categorically refuses to do so and is hinting that he is preparing to stand at the next elections.

The question of the participation of opposition delegates was resolved only at the last moment, by withdrawing the invitation sent to the Iranian delegation. Iran is not even trying to put a good face on it - President Hassan Rouhani had this today about the UN's decision in an interview for Euronews: "Above all, we are convinced that our direct human commitment is to do all we can to stop the bloodshed in Syria and improve the lives of the Syrian people. Stability in the region is also important for us and we cannot just sit back and watch while a civil war is going on in Syria. As far as the invitation is concerned, we are willing to take part in any meeting, the purpose of which is to help the Syrian people. Yes, I am disappointed at what has happened. It is galling, not for me personally or my country, but I am disappointed with the actions of the United Nations and that organization's secretariat."

Tehran's absence, however, did not make a dialogue any easier. Soon after the official opening of the Syrian peace conference, the US secretary of state placed responsibility for the use of chemical weapons on the Bashar al-Assad regime, and the Syrian foreign minister accused the representatives of some of the "Geneva-2" member-countries of "having the blood of the Syrians on their hands".

The Syrian foreign minister [Wallid Muallem] said the authorities had no intention of giving up the fight against the terrorists and proposed continuing the government's dialogue with the opposition on republican territory. In reply, the French foreign minister [Laurent Fabius] reproached the Syrian foreign minister for "aggressive rhetoric" and described Bashar al-Assad's government and the Syrian terrorists as "two sides of the same coin", Newsru.com reports. The Syrian authorities will continue the struggle against terrorists operating on their territory, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, said, defending in his protracted speech President Bashar al-Assad's right to remain in power so long as the Syrian people so wish. "We shall fight the terrorists with one hand and build a democratic society with the other," reported Interfax, quoting the minister's words to the participants in the Montreux talks. "We have been waging a struggle with terrorism for three years and we shall continue this struggle," the Syrian foreign minister asserted. His speech reminded many experts of his argument with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: Walid Muallem "exceeded the time limit", and when he was told about this, he started by saying "You live in New York, but I live in Syria".

The French minister recalled that during the first conference on Syria in Geneva, the situation on the ground was radically different. "Then there were no terrorists, just Bashar al-Assad's extremely fragile government, on the one hand, and the majority of the population on the other," the politician explained. Now, Fabius continued, the key forces in the Syrian conflict are "on the one hand, al-Assad and his regime, and on the other the terrorists who have to be fought, and between them the moderate opposition". "Some people say that all Bashar al-Assad's enemies are terrorists, but that's not true," the minister said. "I believe there is an objective alliance between Bashar al-Assad and the terrorists. They are two sides of the same coin." In the French foreign minister's opinion, "neither one nor the other" should be supported. "Those who should be supported are those who take up sensible positions and adhere to the ideas of protecting human rights and the rights of minorities," he concluded. "Despite all the existing difficulties they are what we call the moderate opposition."

US Secretary of State John Kerry, for his part, announced the interim results of the first day of the meeting. "The conference has clearly shown how much al-Assad is isolated," the American politician asserted. In Kerry's opinion, al-Assad will not be able to stay in power in Syria on his own. He also described the Syrian president as "the main magnet for the terrorists". "Syria cannot be saved so long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power," the head of the State Department summed up. And he added that the question of strikes against Syria could again become a matter of urgency if more problems arise with Syria's chemical weapons: "Much will also depend on how events develop in Syria."

However, there is little hope of a peaceful outcome. The opposition insists on ousting Bashar al-Assad and forming a caretaker government, with which representatives of official Damascus categorically disagree. In this context the argument between a representative of the official Syrian delegation, Safi Ayoush, and a [Orient TV] journalist Hayvi Bouzo is significant. Journalists wanted to know Damascus' position with regard to what is happening in Syria, the TV channel "Dozhd" ("Rain") explains. Ayoush said that his delegation had come to Montreux for the sake of the Syrian people, and he believes that one of the leading factors in a settlement to the situation is the eradication of terrorism in the country which has spread "thanks to the efforts of the western countries". In response to this, RIA Novosti reports, the Syrian journalist Hayvi Bouzo, who supports the opposition, started accusing him of lying. Raising her voice, she said that the Syrian government was in fact encouraging the killings and was not prepared to hold normal negotiations with the opposition. Ayoush just as loudly said that he did not understand which opposition one could have discussions with because its representatives were "like a second-hand music group - they play for whoever pays them most".

Experience shows that however acute differences may be before the start of a meeting, such representative forums usually end with the solemn signing of a joint communiqu? with antiseptic and obscure wording. The most difficult stage begins later when it comes to fulfilling agreements that are concluded and which each side interprets in its own way.

In the case of Syria, the situation is made even more difficult by the fact the Syrians themselves have no clear idea of a solution to the crisis, and no-one wants to give any concessions, not even the top players. Removing Bashar al-Assad by force is not the most difficult task for the western countries but, as the sorry example of Libya has shown, this doesn't mean that after dismantling the hated dictatorship in Syria it will be possible to create an effective government, and that power will not end up in the hands of "Jabhat al-Nusra" or the "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" - groups linked with al-Qa'eda. The chances of Bashar al-Assad's political survival are even less, not to mention the fact that in this instance real power in the country could also end up in the hands of the terrorists, but this time from "Hezbollah". In short, the "Syrian dilemma" remains difficult, and while politicians seek a way out of the abyss the bloodshed in this country continues.