A RAY OF LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS

There is a glimmer of light in the darkness of the Syrian crisis. The peace mission of the UN's special envoy and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has given hope of avoiding a civil war in Syria and external military interference in that country's internal affairs. This is, of course, a very fragile hope, but that in itself is pleasing.

Annan's Plan

On 21 March the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a statement expressing "the fullest support" for Annan's proposals which include the demand for an immediate end to the violence by all sides in the armed conflict in Syria, the beginning of a political dialogue between the Syrian authorities and the opposition, ensuring the supply of humanitarian aid to the peaceful population in the affected regions and creating an effective system of monitoring the situation. The document calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad and representatives of the Syrian opposition to work "with good will" with the UN's special envoy.

The UNSC statement, unlike a resolution, has no binding force. However, the significance of this statement is extremely great bearing in mind that it was drawn up on the basis of Annan's proposals jointly with Russia and the Arab League (LAS) and then coordinated with the leading countries of the West and other members of the Security Council. In other words, all the interested external forces reached a common opinion about how to resolve the deadlocked situation, the development of which could cause a new major war in the Near East.

Of great significance in this connection is the uniquely tactical, if not strategic, alignment of positions between, on the one hand, Russia and China, and on the other, the West and the LAS. The former, it will be recalled, blocked the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution, put forward by the latter, which could lead to external military interference in intra-Syrian affairs on the lines of the scenario in Lebanon. 

It is true that after Russia signed the UNSC statement there was much discussion in the world media that Moscow had altered its position on Syria and might now hand over Asad, as they once treated the Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi. However, one gets the impression that there is a slight whiff of defeatism in Russia's position in this case. Moscow simply decided to use Annan's plan as the only possibility of avoiding a western strike against Syria. Hence Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev's statement at his meeting in Moscow with Kofi Annan that the UN special envoy's mission is "the last chance of avoiding a civil war in Syria". The Kremlin is aware that should Annan's plan fail the prospect of aggression by the West and its Arab allies against Syria becomes more realistic. And, in essence, this would not even require the agreement of Russia and China in the UNSC. There are plenty of examples of such a policy by the western powers, bypassing the UN. Suffice to point out the anti-Saddam military campaign of almost ten years ago.

Although the Security Council statement expresses the single position of its members, one has to take into consideration the fact that the objectives of the main players in international politics remain unaltered. For Russia it is important to preserve Syria as its leading partner in the Near East and to prevent that country being caught in the tide of western policy. For the West it is fundamentally important to achieve the collapse of the Asad regime and to end Damascus' pro-Iranian orientation. At the same time, it is obvious that the US and the European Union are completely indifferent to such possible consequences of Asad's withdrawal from the game as the disintegration of Syria into several parts (we can see a similar reality in the example of Libya).

"Get all Syrians to sit at the conference table"

Following the unanimous adoption of the UNSC statement on Syria the question of how the Syrian leadership would react to Annan's plan became extremely important. Asad pondered for several days and on 27 March adopted a decision which could become seminal from the point of view of the chances of ending the Syrian drama, during which several thousands of people have been killed. The Syrian president agreed to a plan for the peaceful settlement of the situation in his country. Kofi Annan has confirmed that he has received a positive response from official Damascus and is studying it.

However, it is clear that the mere agreement of Asad to Annan's conditions, which are supported by the whole world community, is not enough to bring peace to the Syrian situation.  The Syrian opposition's demand for the immediate and unconditional resignation of the country's president, which, of course, Asad is not prepared to agree to, presents a problem. And in this situation Annan's call to "get all Syrians to sit at the conference table" is extremely apt.

Taking this into account, it is important to appreciate who the main participants in the stand-off within Syria are. Whereas with the Asad regime everything was more or less understood, the Syrian opposition is a bit of a mystery. At a conference in Istanbul on 27 March the majority of the Syrian opposition recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) as "the official representative" of the Syrian people. This structure unites a number of opposition parties and groups and Syrian political and public figures living mainly outside the country. However, despite fairly strong support from the West, the SNC has still not proposed a precise programme of action. And this gives grounds to believe that the forces who make up the framework of the SNC are united by nothing other than a demand for Asad's resignation. Therefore, one should not count on the SNC, should it come to power in Syria, being the guarantor of the unity of the Syrian state. In any event, it is common knowledge that all those dissatisfied with Asad - the liberals, the "Muslim brothers" and radical Islamists, and even what are described as Kurdish separatists - have joined together in the ranks of the SNC. Besides this, those dissatisfied with this motley of a SNC have announced their withdrawal from the council and the creation of a single body - "The Group of Syrian Patriots" - which also claims to have a dominant role in the camp of the Syrian opposition. To this one might add the rivalry for leadership in the so-called "Syrian Free Army", which is fighting the Asad government, and two high-ranking officers who have defected to the opposition and fled to Turkey - Brigadier General Mustafa Ahmed al-Sheikh and Colonel Riad al-Asaad.

The absence of an intra-Syrian dialogue, which did not come about even after the UNSC statement and the adoption by Asad of its conditions, gives grounds for an escalation of the conflict in that country. Official Damascus has even announced a ban on the departure from the country without special permission of men capable of handling weapons (those aged between 18 and 42). This may be seen as preparation by the Syrian authorities for general mobilization of the population which, in turn, means that Damascus does not have much faith in the possibility of a dialogue with the opposition and accordingly a peaceful outcome of the conflict. 

By all accounts, even the measures taken by the Syrian leadership, which were designed to show its readiness to carry out democratic changes in the country, will not lead to a solution to the situation. Parliamentary elections, in which all registered political parties, as well as members of the opposition living abroad (although the latter have rejected an offer to participate in the elections) may take part, have been set for May this year. Thus, the voting should have been carried out for the first time in accordance with the provisions of the new Syrian constitution adopted a few weeks ago, which allows representatives of officially registered opposition parties to be elected to parliament.

However, on 26 March the incumbent Syrian parliament asked President Asad to switch the elections to a later date. In the opinion of MPs, such a step is necessary so that the government has time before the elections to carry out its promised "large-scale reforms". It was also stated in the Syrian parliament that the postponement of the elections will help the newly created parties to become better known before the ballot.

This move also shows that the Asad regime is preparing for very difficult times. The possibility of successfully overcoming them will be provided by this very same Annan plan which is supported by all interested external forces, despite their diverse aspirations.

All that remains now is to define the paths of achieving the task described by the special envoy as the most topical of the present day. Getting the authorities and the opposition to sit at the same table - this is the question, on the outcome of which, by all accounts, will depend which way the most complex Syrian knot is finally unravelled.