Syria's Assad says 'opposition' could join new government

Syria's president has said "opposition forces" could form part of a new government, the shape of which could be agreed at peace talks in Geneva.Bashar al-Assad told a Russian news agency he would expect it to consist of "independent forces, opposition forces and forces loyal to the state".
Indirect talks between the government and opposition resumed this month.
The opposition insist Mr Assad must step down, though the government says his fate is not up for discussion.
The president has previously said it is up to the people of Syria to decide who governs them.
A spokesman for the main opposition umbrella group at the UN-led talks dismissed Mr Assad's latest comments.
"The government, whether it's new or old, as long as it is in the presence of Bashar al-Assad, is not part of the political process," said George Sabra, of the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), Reuters news agency reported.

Click to expand...

Read more @: Syria's Assad says 'opposition' could join new government


The Syrian opposition turning down Assads position is a fanciful action. A political settlement cannot be reached without the inclusion of the Syrian Government in the process. Assad might agree to step down at some point, but any future Syrian Government will have to include both Assad supporters and opposition forces. The fact of the matter is that Assad and his government do have a good amount of public support. There has to be leeway on both sides for a political settlement to be achieved and for the opposition to repeatedly scream, "No! Assad and his supporters cannot be apart of an agreement/new government!" is unrealistic and detrimental to the Syrian people and any hopes of peace.

After all, he only used WMD's on them a little bit.

I doubt there will ever really be some coalition government, too many groups would be in the mix that want different things.

If they try, I suspect they would have another civil war within a decade.

cpwill said:

After all, he only used WMD's on them a little bit.

Click to expand...

Indeed. He's a tyrant and must be stopped. I don't see how the civilian populace supports being gassed the **** out of.

TheDemSocialist said:

"No! Assad and his supporters cannot be apart of an agreement/new government!" is unrealistic and detrimental to the Syrian people and any hopes of peace.

Click to expand...

It might blow the effort at immediate peace but would probably be no more detrimental to the Syrian people than Assad retaining some kind of power.

He's the kind of guy that, as soon as he gets what he wants, pulls some kind of Night of the Long Knives and then the Syrian people are right back where they started in the Spring of 2011.

Not only does Assad have to go, Assad has to die.

soot said:

It might blow the effort at immediate peace but would probably be no more detrimental to the Syrian people than Assad retaining some kind of power.

He's the kind of guy that, as soon as he gets what he wants, pulls some kind of Night of the Long Knives and then the Syrian people are right back where they started in the Spring of 2011.

Not only does Assad have to go, Assad has to die.

Click to expand...

Its easy to speculate, but then what is the point of peace talks then in the first place if an offer allowing opposition in the government is on the table why completely deny that? Its unrealistic to expect a winner take all solution.

TheDemSocialist said:

Its easy to speculate, but then what is the point of peace talks then in the first place if an offer allowing opposition in the government is on the table why completely deny that? Its unrealistic to expect a winner take all solution.

Click to expand...

I guess I agree that a complete unconditional surrender on the part of everyone in the established government is too much to ask for.

But I wasn't suggesting that.

I was saying that if anything like peace is to be attained it is going to have to involve Bashar al-Assad's head ending up on a pike.

That isn't "one sided" or "winner take all".

It's one despotic ruler being handed over by his apparatus in the interest of peace.

TheDemSocialist said:

Its easy to speculate, but then what is the point of peace talks then in the first place if an offer allowing opposition in the government is on the table why completely deny that? Its unrealistic to expect a winner take all solution.

Click to expand...

Assad has recently captured and cleansed territory in the event Syria fractures.
Far to many is the Assad regime have to much blood on their hands, not saying that some accommodation can be made for others.

soot said:

I guess I agree that a complete unconditional surrender on the part of everyone in the established government is too much to ask for.

But I wasn't suggesting that.

I was saying that if anything like peace is to be attained it is going to have to involve Bashar al-Assad's head ending up on a pike.

That isn't "one sided" or "winner take all".

It's one despotic ruler being handed over by his apparatus in the interest of peace.

Click to expand...

See I read this as not just a rejection of Assad but a rejection of the government, The National Progressive Front.

JANFU said:

Assad has recently captured and cleansed territory in the event Syria fractures.
Far to many is the Assad regime have to much blood on their hands, not saying that some accommodation can be made for others.

Click to expand...

Couldnt the same be said about the "opposition"? Both sides have committed atrocities.

TheDemSocialist said:

See I read this as not just a rejection of Assad but a rejection of the government, The National Progressive Front.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it isn't, at least initially.

But that's where the negotiating begins.

If the NPF seriously wants to treat with the Syrian National Coalition then they have to accept that the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad are completely unacceptable to the revolutionaries.

The whole reason for the civil war was to boot Assad and his regime out of power and it would be ridiculous to think that after ~4 years of fighting and dying to make that happen they're going to be willing to head to the negotiating table if the NPF has made it clear that the NPF, the Syrian ASB, and Assad in particular are going to retain the roles in the government that they've always held.

The nationalist/socialists parties might be able to retain some role in a postwar unity type government but they're not going to be able to negotiate a peace that doesn't involve the worst offenders being thrown to the wolves and the system of government seriously reformed.

Think about it.

What's happening now is like the Russian revolution in 1905 with the Socialists and the Marxists being told by Nicholas II that he'd be willing to take them more seriously and form the Duma to give the proletariat a little bit of a seat at the table but the Council of Ministers and the Imperial Council were off limits and the Tsarist autocracy was going to remain the backbone of the government.

It was little more than a band aid and only served to forestall the revolutions of 1917 which led to the collapse of the aristocracy and a total reformation of governance.

soot said:

I'm not saying that it isn't, at least initially.

But that's where the negotiating begins.

If the NPF seriously wants to treat with the Syrian National Coalition then they have to accept that the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and Bashar al-Assad are completely unacceptable to the revolutionaries.

Click to expand...

Well see then we get back to its just not Assad but a governing coalition. As I was trying to imply its not just Assad but the overall Ba'ath Party do have a good amount of public support. Its completely unrealistic to expect them just to simply give up all power and dissolve.

The whole reason for the civil war was to boot Assad and his regime out of power and it would be ridiculous to think that after ~4 years of fighting and dying to make that happen they're going to be willing to head to the negotiating table if the NPF has made it clear that the NPF, the Syrian ASB, and Assad in particular are going to retain the roles in the government that they've always held.

Click to expand...

Again, this does not mean that they will remain in the power they have now and the status quo continues, but an opening to negotitaions and saying, "Yes the opposition can be apart of a new government or transition government". To simply say, "No! Assad and his supporters cannot be apart of an agreement/new government!" is unrealistic and detrimental to the Syrian people and any hopes of peace.

The nationalist/socialists parties might be able to retain some role in a postwar unity type government but they're not going to be able to negotiate a peace that doesn't involve the worst offenders being thrown to the wolves and the system of government seriously reformed.

Click to expand...

Wouldnt nationalist and socialist parties be many of the parties that make up the National Progressive Front? That would also include the largest party that makes up the NPF, the Ba'ath Party.

Think about it.

Click to expand...

I am.

What's happening now is like the Russian revolution in 1905 with the Socialists and the Marxists being told by Nicholas II that he'd be willing to take them more seriously and form the Duma to give the proletariat a little bit of a seat at the table but the Council of Ministers and the Imperial Council were off limits and the Tsarist autocracy was going to remain the backbone of the government. It was little more than a band aid and only served to forestall the revolutions of 1917 which led to the collapse of the aristocracy and a total reformation of governance.

Click to expand...

I would disagree because this is still in the earliest stages, we have not seen what kind of role the opposition parties can play and what kind of power they would be guranteed because the oppostion parties immediately said, "nope!" even before getting to that point.

TheDemSocialist said:

Couldnt the same be said about the "opposition"? Both sides have committed atrocities.

Click to expand...

Yes, both have. Question- do the people trust Assad?

JANFU said:

Yes, both have. Question- do the people trust Assad?

Click to expand...

I have not idea. But there is a substantial amount of support for him and his government.

yeah, that sounds a little too good to be true. The rebels are mostly really far right groups which want a democratic version of saudi arabia. Assad is too secular for their likes. The future of syria is just as uncertain as the results of the 2016 election