Boycotting the new round of Geneva peace talks this week wasn't really an option for the Syrian opposition. It would have put them in a difficult position with the international community and an increasingly nervous public, noted the columnist George Samaan in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.
The scope of the war on ISIL has widened in recent months in Iraq and Syria. Great world powers have come to terms with the need to put an end to the terrorist organisation by any means possible.
“The world has grown weary of the war and its repercussions,” Samaan said.
He said the conflict threatened to change the face of Europe, giving rise to the extreme right in Europe and “coming close to destroying the uniform laws Europeans have worked hard to put in place”.
The writer also noted that the war had imposed a great economic burden on Europe.
Hence, the world could not possibly allow for the crisis to continue and, for this reason, despite its initial reticence, the Syrian opposition found itself compelled to go to Geneva lest it appeared to be the party that had rejected a possible political solution to the crisis.
In the five years since the onset of the conflict, the opposition has found itself in a most difficult position, the writer said.
On the one hand, it has been under pressure from the United States, which has not done much to solve the problem, and on the other hand, it has had to face mounting pressure from its popular base and the military factions that stand by it.
Parties that have sided with the opposition in Syria have insisted on dealing with humanitarian issues before going into talks. In their opinion, talks will remain meaningless as long as sieges and air raids continue.
At this first phase of the renewed talks, the opposition delegation won’t be required to sit across the table from the Assad regime’s delegation. They will conduct their meetings with United Nations envoy Staffan de Mistura.
But the writer added that if the UN is unsuccessful in imposing tangible measures to resolve the humanitarian issues and the parties fail to reach consensus on the terms of the negotiations, this round of talks will fail just as the previous rounds did.
In any case, as long as the Assad regime, with the support of its Russian ally, is adamant about pursuing a military solution, the opposition is best advised to keep its expectations to a minimum.
Also commenting on the Syrian opposition's role in the Geneva talks, the columnist Samih Saab wrote in the Lebanese daily Annahar: "US pressure on the Syrian opposition mustn't be read as a sign of a change of heart towards president Bashar Al Assad. On the contrary, it stems from Washington's keenness to salvage the Syrian opposition, which lacks the ability to impose its will on the ground."
As matters stand, the strong players in Syria are the Syrian army on one side and ISIL on the other.
The writer noted that Russian intervention on the battlefield has “reshuffled” circumstances in favour of the regime. For this reason, the opposition stood to miss out on a historic opportunity if they insisted on their initial decision to boycott the talks.
“The fast-changing political and field realities since the Russian air strikes persuaded Washington that its best option would be to seek a political solution with the regime rather than wager on removing it from power by force,” the writer noted.
Meanwhile, some members of the Syrian opposition seemed oblivious to the imminent threat from ISIL and Al Nusra Front, the writer said.
They continued to believe that it was the regime that had come up with all these jihadist groups in order to distort the opposition’s image.
Until all opposition factions united behind one attitude towards these groups, they would remain the weakest link in the Syrian chain, the writer concluded.
Translated by Racha Makarem
RMakarem@thenational.ae
