SYRIAN OPPOSITION groups are deeply divided over how to effect democratic change in their country. While domestic political opposition groups call for negotiations, the chief expatriate opposition coalition, rebel factions within the country and the Free Syrian Army favour the use of force to topple the Assad regime.
Their different approaches have made it impossible for the domestic and external opposition groups to unite behind a common programme and have encouraged violent elements to seize the initiative by staging spectacular atrocities like yesterday’s suicide bombings in Damascus.
Abdel Aziz al-Khair, executive committee member of the National Co-ordination Board, the main locally based opposition group, said the multiplicity of domestic organisations has been trying to forge a unified front before embarking on talks with the expatriate coalition, the Syrian National Council.
He revealed that most groups say they agree to a minimum programme, which he defined as: “Yes to a new regime, No to foreign intervention, No to militarisation, and No to sectarianism.”
Dr Khair, a physician who spent 11 years underground and 14 years in prison, observed that the council had agreed to unity and the common programme late last year, and had signed a deal with the board. But the council pulled out immediately because of pressure from the “Muslim Brothers, who would become a minority” if the organisations were united. Unity was also rejected by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, council patrons providing military aid to rebel factions, he said.
He said most local groups were prepared to “join in negotiations with [government members] who are not bloodstained or corrupt” with the aim of designing “a roadmap to effect the shift to a new, democratic regime”. He was reluctant to name potential interlocutors, but suggested vice-president Farouk al-Sharaa as a “possible person”, and certain high-ranking army officers.
Dr Khair, who visited Moscow recently, revealed that the Russians sought to “shape the country gradually, while finding a peaceful solution” for President Bashar al-Assad, his family members and military officers involved in the crackdown on protests. The Russians envisage a transition period of more than a year, lasting until Assad’s term ends in 2014, when there would be a “new constitution, new parliament and a new president”.
Dr Khair said the opposition was due to meet in Cairo next week for unity discussions. But he was not optimistic.
“This time there will be no agreement on anything” because of opposition from the council’s sponsors. “Talk about unifying the opposition . . . is wishful thinking for the time being,” he asserted.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a local activist who supports the council said unity was illusory because the council, the Free Syrian Army and independent militia groups professed adherence to the policy of “three Nos” but, in fact, actively promoted militarisation and external intervention, based on the Libyan model. She repeatedly denied, however, that arming and protecting armed rebels who largely came from the majority Sunni community could precipitate sectarian conflict and all-out civil war – a fear voiced by Syrian, regional and western commentators.
Because of this concern, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have not yet delivered $100 million (€77 million) of arms to the rebels, forcing some weapons-starved groups to shift from the largely failed strategy of capturing and holding urban areas to setting off bombs near security targets or government offices and assassinating army officers and government supporters. Jakob Kellenberger, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has confirmed that the largely independent rebel groups have increasingly adopted guerrilla tactics.
Analysts argue that the rebels are seeking to harass the regime and maintain a certain level of unrest and uncertainty, thereby denying the government victory and unchallenged control over the country.
