As a national conference on reform opened in the Syrian capital this week, it may be that the gulf between the regime and the opposition is still too wide for a solution to the crisis to be found, writes Bassel Oudat in Damascus Dialogue between the regime and the opposition in Syria has been unthinkable over the past five years, because the regime has rejected any sharing of power except with the parties of the country's National Progressive Front (NPF), in reality just an extension of the regime. However, this week, at the end of a long process of cat and mouse, the country's opposition finally met in the capital Damascus, agreeing on the conditions needed to end the crisis that has affected the country over the last two months, including ending the military and security operations used to suppress demonstrators calling for an end to the regime. Around 160 opposition figures, all independent of any party affiliation, gathered on Monday in a hotel in Damascus, issuing a statement, called their "pledge", in which they listed demands such as ending military and security operations, ending the media campaign against the uprising, changing the policies of the official media, and allowing the foreign media to cover events. Other demands included releasing all political detainees, forming an independent committee to prosecute those responsible for the killings of demonstrators, eliminating the emergency laws in fact and not just on paper, and recognising the right to peaceful protest. "There are two ways forward for Syria," opposition activist Munzer Khaddam told the meeting. "The first is a clear and non-negotiable move to a peaceful transition to democracy that would rescue our country and our people. The second is a road that leads into the unknown and that will destroy us all." The delegates called for holding a national dialogue conference to outline a comprehensive programme and timeline for political and constitutional reform. This conference would focus particularly on Article 8 of the constitution, which stipulates that the ruling Syrian Baath Party is the leader of the Syrian state and society, they said, removing Article 8 having long been a key opposition demand. The revolutions that broke out in Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year made a huge impression on Syria, where factors have come together to create a fertile environment for a similar revolution to take place, waiting only for the spark that could ignite it. On 18 March, that spark came in the southern Syrian city of Daraa, three days after a small demonstration took place in the Hamidiya Market in Damascus, when demonstrators took to the streets in protest against the arrest and torture of children because they had written anti-regime graffiti on walls and the authorities had refused to release them. The families of the children then went out into the streets in protest, resulting in the deaths of four young people. These ignited the Syrian uprising, now becoming known as the Syrian revolution. In the first week of the protests, the authorities tried to talk to the people of Daraa by sending in a delegation of Party and security officials. However, these officials were surprised to find that the people were not demanding simply better services, but were instead making political demands, including for freedom, democracy, equality and justice. The delegation suspended the dialogue and returned to Damascus, shocked because it was the first time that representatives of the regime had witnessed such demands. Repression of the protesters was then stepped up, and violence began to be used to suppress the uprising. Demonstrations spread throughout the governorate, and similar protests soon took hold of several other Syrian cities. Since the beginning of the protests and the deaths of civilian demonstrators, the Syrian regime has described the events as a "conspiracy", dealing with the demonstrations accordingly and refusing calls for reform or for dialogue with the protesters. Instead, the regime has relied on security intelligence and military force to impose a security solution on the situation, and the Syrian media, the mouthpiece of the regime, has asserted that dialogue is unacceptable on the grounds that the leaders of the protests are "infiltrators", "conspirators", "terrorists" or "foreign agents" set on destroying the state. Nevertheless, the demonstrators and the country's opposition have defined specific political, social and economic demands, insisting that what is taking place in the country is a national crisis that can only be resolved through political dialogue. Over recent months, the regime has not responded to these demands, instead escalating its security measures and using armoured vehicles and tanks to invade Syrian towns and cities. Friday after Friday, the Syrian regime has demonstrated its belief that bullets are more powerful than dialogue, even as the demonstrations have spread to more than 90 towns and cities and the regime has been obliged to use irregular as well as regular forces in attempts to quell the protests. More recently, the regime has shown signs that it could be persuaded that the way forward lies in dialogue, even if this will have to be according to its own rules and may only result in cosmetic changes and exchanges of views with opposition figures as individuals and without any political organisations or groups. The regime has not wanted to recognise the opposition or the protesters as partners in dialogue, and therefore though Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad revoked the country's Emergency Law some time ago, he then immediately replaced it with another, similar law. Al-Assad also issued a decree giving clemency to detainees, but this did not include the majority of the country's political prisoners or the demonstrators that had been detained. Such reforms have naturally not satisfied the opposition or the protesters, who have insisted instead on comprehensive dialogue and an admission from the regime that the country is in crisis and that the events are not merely part of a rebellion, protest or conspiracy. To the outside world, Damascus has long tried to pretend that dialogue has begun, with presidential political and media adviser Buthayna Shaaban telling the international media weeks ago that a national dialogue had been launched in Syria. The opposition has up to now rejected such statements, placing preconditions on the agenda first, such as halting the current violence, releasing political detainees, and agreeing to a national conference to be attended by all Syrian political forces with a clear agenda to discuss the structure of the regime. As a result, the demonstrations continued to grow and expand geographically, the number of those killed rising to nearly 1,600, according to Syrian human rights monitors. The slogans used by the protesters have also grown more extreme, demanding the overthrow of the regime in an attempt to force the authorities to pay attention to the gravity of the situation. The regime opened secret channels for some sort of dialogue with the opposition, though these foundered in the wake of opposition demands that threatened the political, financial, and other privileges of those in power. As a result, a committee including the country's two vice-presidents and various presidential advisers was set up to talk to opposition figures on an individual basis. When the opposition refused to deal with this committee, another was set up including two members of the ruling Baath Party, two members from the parties in the NPF, and four independent members, together headed by Vice President Farouk Al-Sharaa. Once again, this committee was tasked with talking to opposition figures on an individual basis, with officials secretly contacting the opposition parties to convince them of the benefits of individual dialogue. For its part, the opposition has insisted on its previous preconditions, leading the regime to hold meetings in the country's governorates attended by members of the Baath Party, its allies in the NPF and leaders of the governorates concerned to discuss demands pertaining to people's daily lives and not the structure of the regime, constitutional reform, the rotation of power, the separation of powers, and reform of the security agencies. Despite this week's conference in Damascus, for the moment it still appears that the two sides are too far apart for realistic dialogue to take place. However, given the history of changes in position up to now, it may be that the "coordinators", as they are called, of the present meeting may hold the key to a solution.
