Syria situation is a stalemate

An international conference on Syria was held on June 30 in Geneva. Unlike the "Friends of Syria" meetings held in Tunisia and Turkey, the Geneva conference was under the auspices of the United Nations, making it more bipartisan and trustworthy to both sides of the conflict, although neither side was invited to attend.

Actually the Syria crisis is complicated as there are so many players involved. Being located on the front line of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it still has some territory, the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel; at the same time, it is ruled by Alewis, who are a minority Shiite of the population, most of the population is Sunni.

The government has relied on tight control to maintain its rule, but its power diminished last year. However, its opponents are distracted rather than united, and the international community can't agree on a certain plan of intervention so the situation has become a stalemate.

Whatever their differences are, the various opposition forces share one goal: overthrowing the government. However, despite supporting the anti-government forces, NATO nations are hesitating this time, because they are wary of intervening in a country with so many conflicts.

As the only Shiite-led ally of the Syrian government, Iran is paying close attention to the situation, and is competing with the Sunni-led Gulf Cooperation Council states for influence in Syria.

Another essential power in the region, Turkey had differences with Syria during the Cold War over Israel. Their relations improved in the last decade but worsened again last year due to Turkey's support of the "Arab Spring". Now Turkey has no other choice but to continue supporting the establishment of a new regime in Syria.

But there are an estimated 5-12 million Alewis in Turkey, 6.25-15 percent of the population. So Turkey is resorting to NATO instead of directly engaging with Syrian government, despite one of its military aircraft being shot down by the Syrian military. Turkey will keep an eye on Syria but without going too far.

Within NATO there are also disagreements. As the former trustee of the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, which was founded after the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, France has deep links with Syria and it is reluctant to agree to military intervention.

The United States is also cautious, because one of the fundamental principles of the Barack Obama administration is not being bound by troubles in Middle East. The US cannot afford to be distracted from its return to the Asia-Pacific region.

Russia is another major power preventing military intervention in Syria, and China will stand with Russia to defend the principle of no foreign military intervention in the domestic affairs of another country.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Cooperation Council states, although eager to overthrow the Syrian government, lack the capability to do so alone. All they can do is to offer material assistance to the opposition in Syria. Saudi Arabia is even avoiding international efforts to solve the Syria crisis.

As the crisis in Syria concerns the interests of so many parties, it is advisable for them to coordinate delicately and comprehensively to avoid any misunderstandings escalating into war. A change in government can be accepted as a result, not a prerequisite.

In other words, the ultimate solution should be inclusive and acceptable to the Syrian people. After all, the government in Syria cannot be blamed for all the crises inside the country. The recent series of bomb attacks in Syria were almost certainly conducted by external branches of al-Qaida.

The mediation by the international community will be a failure if it doesn't leave any survival chance for the Syrian government, as it will force the government to fight to the end.

The author is a scholar on Middle East studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.