[March 2016] The reality is that all of the backers of the different groups in Syria, whether they represent Syrian public opinion or not, has either no or weak interest in change towards a representative government. Even the foreign policies of the Western democracies in the Middle East (exc Palestine-Israel) are very little influenced by public opinion. Which is either indifferent, jingoistic or hypocritically ultra-pacifist ; but rarely constructive.
The Algerian Civil War of the 1990s ended when a deal was done in which foreign backers agreed to cut support to all strands of the opposition, in return for token changes to the FLN dictatorship. A similar outcome is likely in Syria. After Geneva fails, a deal is done in private to cut all support to the Syrian opposition in return for a change of presidential figurehead, more Sunnis in government and a better sham electoral system ; but which in reality keeps the Assad regime essentially unchanged.
Everyone, except the Syrian people, will then congratulate themselves on finding a “diplomatic solution”.
Alternatively the idea that people have the right to rebel against oppressive brutal regimes, the right to request support from democratic countries and the responsibility to design a viable alternative government. People living in freedom then have the duty (and long term self-interest) to respond adequately to these requests, in return for rebels meeting their responsibilities.
The Syrian Crisis is bigger than even Syria or the Middle East region. These ideas have been lost in the endless mass media waffle around Syria, that tediously and reliability always misses the point. Is this being challenged by the activists in way that breaks the frame inside which the media imprisons the Syrian Crisis?