UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi’s apology to the Syrian people for the failure of the latest round of peace talks bears testament to the difficulty of bridging the wide gap existing between Damascus and the opposition on how to proceed to break the deadlock.
The most contentious issue for the two sides is whether to give priority to the establishment of a transitory body to govern Syria and usher in a new beginning, as the opposition would prefer, or deal with violence and terrorism before proceeding to the final stages of the negotiation process, as the Syrian government insists on.
Brahimi tried in vain to bridge the gap between the two by proposing that violence and terrorism be discussed on the first day of any resumed round of talks, and then tackle the formation of a transitional governing body. Yet even this reasonable proposal failed to meet the approval of the two sides.
A clear-headed look at these two daunting issues would show that the formation of a transitional government hinges on the cessation of all violence.
This means that the sides must put an end to the fighting and acts of violence in order to create an environment conducive to a political process that can see elections of sorts and return to normalcy.
The two warring camps have taken time to reconsider their negotiating tactics and priorities, so there is hope that common sense will prevail and they will meet once again in Geneva to pursue peace efforts in a logical and orderly manner for the sake of the suffering Syrian people.
The way things stand now, there is no winning side, only bloodbath and destruction.
Syrians, whether government or opposition, sure cannot wish to see their country going the Iraq way, for they do not stand to benefit from such a development.
