Members of the Syrian opposition abroad have elected an advisory committee. The latter has been charged with forming an executive commission. The commission was formed from the “constituents of the Syrian people”, being made up of “several ethnicities: Arab, Kurd, Chaldo-Assyrian, Assyrian, Turcoman, Circassian, Armenian and others”. Participants at the conference in Antalya stressed “the legitimate and equal rights for all these ethnicities in the new Syrian constitution”. The Syrian conference in Antalya is reminiscent of the conference held by the former Iraqi opposition in London in 2002. The closing statement of that conference stated that it had “resolve[d] that all the constituent elements of the Iraqi people; Arabs, Kurds, Turcomans, Assyrians, Chaldeans” (the term Chaldo-Assyrians having not yet been coined) “and others, and Muslims and Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Yezidis, and other believers in heavenly religions, should participate in the political decision-making”. And just as Iraqis have disagreed, and continue to disagree, over shares and the proportional participation of each of the constituents mentioned in the resolution, those participating in the Syrian conference disagreed over representation within the advisory committee. Yet they, like the Iraqis before them, reached an understanding. Thus the Kurds would have representatives, the tribes would have representatives, the Arabs would have a share… etc. And just like the participants in the Iraqi conference, the Syrians in Antalya avoided any mention of Israel in their closing statement. Or any mention of Arabism. And it is well known that the regime in Damascus has adopted enmity towards the Hebrew State and Arabism as unifying slogans for all Syrians, regardless of sect and confession. Additionally, none of those speaking for the conference made any mention of the cause which the regime considers to be that of all the Arabs. It is true that participants in the conference say that the regime in Damascus is “bartering” with the slogan of liberating Palestine and using it to exercise tyranny and oppression, and that it has not stood up to Israel, the Golan front having been quiet ever since the end of the October War. They say this while pretending to forget the justifications put forward by the regime – among them that its army has waged many battles against Israel in Lebanon, that it dismantled the Lebanese regime backed by the Hebrew State in 1982, that it has supported the Resistance, and that Damascus was subjected because of all this to isolation and US sanctions – considering them all to be sham propaganda meant to justify its weakness, calling this “treachery”. Yet whatever the case, and whatever the quarrels between the regime and the opposition, especially abroad, the question remains: why did the statement of the Antalya Conference fail to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict? Was it to avoid disagreements between the “constituents” participating in the conference? Was the issue ignored in order to elicit American and European support, or to evade putting forward issues for which now is not the time? And will the plurality of the system which the opposition is calling for spare Syria from conflict and bring it into the paradise of peaceful democracy? And then there is another issue. Those gathered at the conference in Antalya purposely sought to reassure the Alawite sect that it would not suffer any harm in the “new” Syria. Such reassurance conceals an accusation against this sect, and seems closer to predicting a sectarian civil war than to embracing this or that group. The consequences of such a war would not be restricted to Syria, but would spread to the neighborhood and perhaps beyond it. Fear for Syria is legitimate, and the regime has begun to be worn down from within and from without. It is not unlikely for Hillary Clinton to come out in the near future and strike out the word “nearly” from her statement that “Bashar Al-Assad's legitimacy has run out”, announcing her support for the opposition's legitimacy, after its program has been developed, just like Iraq's constituents developed themselves and their programs. This is some of what the Syrian opposition abroad and its conference in Turkey have announced. As for the opposition in the interior, that is a different matter, and it will produce leaders to engage in dialogue with the regime or continue protesting to overthrow it.
