The situation in Syrian is extremely worrisome and garners great attention both globally and internationally with regard to the future of the civil peace of the Syrian people who suffer from all kinds of injustice and suppression amid the growing intensity of the conflict.

Undoubtedly, Syria is witnessing a real internal war between the government and some opposition parties. Syrian President Bashar Al Assad was clear when he lately announced that Syria was in a real war and he was determined to win it.

And, if the Arab Spring was blossoming in Tunisia and Egypt, and Libya’s “spring” was supported by Nato jet fighters, Syria’s “spring” is facing a tragic situation after it failed to implant its flowers in Damascus’s squares and other Syrian cities.

The situation in Syrian no longer accepts any solution except foreign interference, whether by applying more pressure to persuade or compel the conflicting parties to accept realistic solutions or by military intervention that puts an end to the existing regime.

The recent call by UN and Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan to form a “transitional government” was welcomed by the international conference on Syria, which was held in Geneva on June 31 in the presence of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, in addition to Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the UN Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the Arab League.

The Geneva meeting concluded with the issuance of “Annan’s peace plan”. It was noticed that the conference was not attended by any Syrian party. Also, more important and influential Arab and regional countries than Kuwait, Iraq and Qatar were not even invited to the conference.

The “transitional government” referred to in the Geneva document issued by the conference, is not used except to describe a temporary phase between two different eras. This marks a new approach towards solving the Syrian crisis, although the conference failed to come out with mechanisms for implementing Annan’s plan.

The noticeable ignorance of the Syrian president raises the question whether Russia and China do not object to exclude him from the proposed peace plan. especially since they have not made any clear remarks indicating their willingness to abandon their support for him.

However, Russia still continues to support Al Assad and provide him with arms. On the other hand, some observers may explain that the conference is the first to lay the foundations for Syria’s post-Al Assad era.

The approving of “Annan’s plan” by the Geneva conference is not enough to talk about an international consensus on a common scenario to solve Syria’s crisis and alleviate the suffering of its people.

The plan has conflicting interpretations, especially with regard to the destiny of President Al Assad. This is evident from statements by various officials. While the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the Geneva agreement paved the way for a post-Al Assad unity government, the Russian Foreign Minister said the issue of Al Assad’s departure from power was to be determined by the Syrian people.

On the other hand, the Chinese Foreign Minister said: “What is stated in the document should be acceptable to all parties in Syria.” The first reactions to the Annan plan do not indicate that there is any possibility of an end to the Syrians’ plight. This was clearly evident from the phone calls the Syrian President had with officials from Russia, China and Iran prior to the conference, in which he expressed his rejection to any political deal to impose the plan and was determined to remain in power regardless of the consequences and sacrifices.

In contrast, the leaders of the Syrian opposition have completely rejected any place for Al Assad in any political settlement, saying that there will be no place for Al Assad in Syria’s political settlement. This happened as the scattered Syrian opposition factions tried to unite their ranks and agree on drafting a national document at a conference in Cairo that was sponsored by the Arab League and concluded on June 3. The conference saw the participation of 250 Syria figures as well as the foreign ministers of some countries like Turkey and France.

Russia has taken a special stand towards the ruling regime in Syria. Although the Gaddafi regime in Libya was classified as one of its friendly regimes, it was not eager to defend it the way it has defended the Syrian regime. This is mainly because the Al Assad regime is the last one of its allies in the region and its departure means a major change in the equation of balance of power, making Russia a less important and influential player than others.

Although the Geneva conference did not rise to the conference of the Arab foreign ministers, held in Doha on June 2, which called for placing Syria’s ruling regime under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it brought about some new insights.

It revealed that both Russia and China had receded from their earlier uncompromising positions after regional and international pressure applied on them throughout the 16 months since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis. Moreover, the crisis in Syria has become an international conflict of wills dominated and determined by those who have the broader global influence at political, diplomatic, economic and military levels.

The scene on the ground became more complicated and dangerous after a Turkish fighter jet was shot down by Syrian Air Force. This serious incident has added more burden on the Syrian regime after Ankara refused to accept the scenario presented by Damascus and considered what happened as an act of aggression.

Turkey also stressed that it reserved the right to retaliate and all rights stemming from international laws, making the most of its membership in Nato, which expressed its support for Turkey during its emergency meeting on the issue.

Dr Mohammed Akef Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.