When the United Nations envoy took over from his predecessor Kofi Annan, in an attempt to end the killing and find a solution for the situation in Syria, he was fully aware that success would be impossible. He was very hesitant before accepting the mission, first of all because he was an experienced diplomat and had dealt with the Syrian regime since the days of President Hafez Assad and the Lebanese Civil War. Secondly, he had a profound knowledge of the diplomacy of the Security Council and the role of the five permanent members, led by the United States and Russia. However, although he was aware of the huge difficulties, he accepted the mission; leading politicians and diplomats do not retire as long as diplomatic missions are difficult and dangerous. The attractiveness of the job, and the activity that accompanies it, are stronger than remaining static, and the possibility of failure. Lakhdar Brahimi's most recent visit, as with every time he goes to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad, was dominated by Assad's position itself, based on what was reported by pro- and anti-Syrian regime newspapers in Lebanon: in other words, the Syrian president's denial of reality. Brahimi is focusing on the text of the Geneva declaration, which begins with a transitional government and strips Assad of all powers, giving them to this executive body. The new government may include members of the regime, based on the Geneva declaration, which is vague on how Assad leaves power because of the agreement reached on the eve of the Geneva meeting, between United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. Clinton and her European and Arab allies believe that the Geneva formula stipulates Assad's departure from power and places him on the margins of political life, while the Russians believe that Assad will remain president, and turn over his prerogatives. However, the recent talks between Assad and Brahimi, as detailed by Lebanese newspapers, indicate that the former will not agree to any formula that involves his leaving the presidency, whether by shortening his term or by having early elections in the coming months, or by turning Syria into a parliamentary system, to take away some of the president's powers. Moscow informed Brahimi that Assad had agreed to a transitional government, but rejected the idea of being excluded from power during a transitional phase. In practical terms, Assad and his Russian ally are waiting for the decisive moment to come on the ground, in other words after the killing of 40,000 people in Syria in 2012. Day after day, more people are killed. There are more than one million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, while Bashar Assad continues to fight and hold on to his presidential seat. Brahimi tells the permanent members of the Security Council that Russia must be included in any discussion of any solution. But Russia is obstructing things, and the vague diplomacy of US President Barack Obama is not helping to find any solution. For example, how did the American University of Beirut hospital administration accept to treat Syrian Interior Minister Mohammad Shaar for burns, while he was responsible for killing hundreds of people in Tripoli in the 1980s, when he was the de facto governor of North Lebanon? The Americans claim that he was accepted for humanitarian reasons but Shaar quickly exited, because of the demonstrations that surrounded the hospital and the rumors of an Interpol arrest warrant waiting for him. Assad believes, despite the tough rhetoric of the US administration, that the US still wants him in power, and he is aware that Israel has protected his regime for a long time. It is obvious, unfortunately, that the killing in Syria will not end unless there is a victor and a vanquished. It is certain that the regime will not be the victor but the price is a high one, and the killing and displacement of innocents continues. It is hoped that salvation will come in 2013, or else Syria will be fragmented and end up like Somalia. There are many tragedies of war and displacement, and things cannot continue the way they are. It is a mistake to engage in diplomacy with a person who has killed his people, bombing them by using airplanes and tanks. The Great Powers must force Assad to step down and put him on trial, because he will fight and kill his people and label them terrorists. It is time for the White House to move effectively and stop spending time on pointless diplomacy, giving Assad more time to fight. Brahimi's diplomatic efforts should prepare for Syria's post-Assad future and not spend time on mediation that will not be useful in any case, because Assad is determined to stay on, and bomb his people. The Syrian opposition should work with Brahimi and present him with clear strategic proposals for the post-Assad phase, to demonstrate to a world that is skeptical of the Arab uprisings, after the experience of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, that it will not allow the country to fragment into warring sectarian groups. It is hoped that the Syrian National Coalition will quickly set down a convincing and promising plan for the country in a post-Assad era, and will benefit from Brahimi's experience in this regard. This is the hugely-important mission that Brahimi can achieve with the Syrian opposition after the fall of Assad, which has become inevitable. Everyone is aware that he cannot stay on after all of the killing and destruction. But the question today remains: Will 2013 be the year in which the killing stops, and Assad leaves power and faces trial? This is the hope for the New Year.
