The Syrian government and the opposition Syrian National Coalition (SNC) continue talks in Montreaux, but the question of regime change, which was pushed heavily by the SNC, seems to have stalled what little momentum the process had.
The SNC is demanding that the government sign off on US demands for a “transitional government” which doesn’t include President Bashar Assad before getting into any other details.
The Syrian government, by contrast, is saying that they believe the talks should begin without preconditions, and that international demands should not be driving the process.
Today’s talks ended early at the insistence of UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who said the tone was getting too confrontational for his taste. At the same time, UN officials say there is considerable interest in continuing the talks, though no obvious path of progress seems to exist on the matter.
Regime change will come when people of Syria vote for it, not before and no matter who is demanding for regime change. That’s democracy, in a functioning democracy, a transparent voting system, the majority people’s vote (50+1) which is counts not the mindless minorities demand.
Oh yes, Syria is a functioning democracy where people have been "voting" for the Assads since 1971.
Democracy…..? Every time someone try to force it upon the people of the Middle East the outcome proved to be disastrously.
As it turned out, the loosing side in a conflict and one that only represents their western sponsors themselves and a handful of those cannibals and throat slitters the west has become so fond of lately , dont have much of a leverage and no power to change fact´s on the ground. But we all knew that didn´t we? As their reward for slightly saving Kerry´s & Robert Ford´s faces in Montreaux by just sitting there and listening to a professional and highly skilled Syrian delegation stripping them of their self-proclaimed legitimacy, will be more US arms to keep the Syrians suffer another year and, they hope, buy more loyalty from non-existent Syrian "moderates" (those are increasingly according to amnesty laws, lining up behind the government to rid the country from the Saudi/US Wahhabi plague and sort out their differences later) . No surprises yet…
Of course they did. Saying "regime change" is a goal of a war by its very definition rules out most negotiated settlements. After all, what government is going to officially renounce not only its own rule, but the complete definition of the country and whatever passes for a constitution by shutting itself down. And the more oppressive the tyrant in charge, the more likely it is that they'll know that leaving power will be a personal death sentence. Can Assad see anything but a Saddam-style trial and hanging in his future if he gives up the military and police power that currently protects him?
To have a side say they want 'regime change' as a certain precondition of the talks is effectively saying that the only 'peace' they'll accept is the unconditional surrender of their opponent. As such, any side that is saying they'll accept nothing less than regime change is also saying that it won't negotiate a peace and instead plans to fight to the bloody end. in this case, when you combine the Al-Qaida and Saudi-backed Islamist factions refusal to attend the talks at all, and the western puppets in the opposition coming only to demand basically the death of their opponent, it seems pretty obvious that the US-Israeli-Saudi-Gulf backers of the opposition really want this war to continue.
The syrians know what happened in Libya and they know they will have a pistol puahed up treir rear end if the USA gets it way in the talks. It is not going to go well no matter what for the old colonial powers who have caused so much misery in the world
It's all a farce. Israel and the USA want to start WW3.