Purported attempt to push back Geneva-2

From www. politico.com

The authoritative Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat says today the Syrian opposition umbrella organization, known as the Syrian National Coalition, is seeking to push back the Geneva-2 peace conference for Syria slated to be held in the Swiss resort of Montreux on January 22.

The paper quotes an SNC source as saying the alliance will be telling its Sunday meeting with the core group of the Friends of Syria – better known as the London 11 – it can only attend the Geneva-2 parley if the conditions set in the Geneva communiqué of June 2012 are met. Chiefly among them is the provision stating: “In all circumstances, the Government must allow immediate and full humanitarian access to humanitarian organizations to all areas affected by the fighting. The Government and all parties must enable the evacuation of the wounded, and all civilians who wish to leave to do so.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who accompanied President Francois Hollande on his second state visit to Saudi Arabia a fortnight ago, declared yesterday: “The opposition is right to demand that in parallel to Geneva-2, humanitarian corridors be established and the bombing cease.”

Speaking at a joint press briefing in Paris with his visiting Japanese counterpart, Fabius gave this insight into Geneva-2, translated by France Diplomatie:

Q.: Mr. Fabius, in three days’ time you will host an important meeting on Syria. You said just now that you have discussed this matter with your guests. At a time when the Syrian opposition is tearing itself apart -- they haven’t yet managed to accept or turn down the invitation to attend the Geneva-2 conference -- what can we expect from a conference in which the opposition may not participate?

Regarding Syria, the day before yesterday, I received the invitation from Mr. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, to the Geneva conference on January 22 which should take place as follows: On the first day, a meeting will take place in Montreux where we will set out our positions. Then on January 24, there will be a meeting between the Syrian delegations, in the presence of Mr. Brahimi.

Obviously, we support the holding of the Geneva-2 meeting, to the extent that we have always maintained from the outset that the solution be a political one. I would also like to say that if people had listened to France more carefully from the outset, then we probably wouldn’t be in the absolutely tragic situation that we’re in now.

I remember very clearly – it was one of the first times that I received many of my foreign colleagues, just after we took office – the major conference known as the Friends of Syria conference.

At the time we said that Mr. Bashar al-Assad, who UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described as having committed “crimes against humanity,” could not have a role in the future of Syria’s people.

The vision of the future should be built around the moderate opposition.

At the time, in July 2012, there was no Iranian or Hezbollah presence, and there were no terrorist movements. A specific action would have been enough to ensure that developments proceeded as desired but we weren’t heeded. The U.S. elections took place, there was dissent between different groups, and now we find ourselves with an absolutely tragic situation. Thousands of people die every month; there are appalling atrocities.

The number of deaths has now exceeded 130,000. There are millions of displaced persons, with tragic consequences, not just for Syria, a tormented country, but also for Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq.

We need a political solution to address this. In order to find this political solution, we have to engage in discussions – hence Geneva.

The letter that Mr. Ban Ki-moon sent us, which is very well written, states that the goal of the Geneva meeting is to create a transitional government with full executive powers, through discussions between the parties.

The goal of Geneva-2 is to meet, even if it’s not easy, in order to try and build a transitional government with full executive powers, not with Bashar al-Assad but with some elements of the regime and with the moderate opposition. It’s critical because if it doesn’t happen, Bashar al-Assad will say, “If you don’t want the terrorists, support me,” and the terrorists will say, “if you don’t want Bashar al-Assad, support the terrorists.”

We don’t support Mr. Bashar al-Assad, who is guilty of crimes against humanity, or the terrorists. We have to find a solution through dialogue. It’s true that the situation of our moderate opposition coalition friends isn’t easy.

They have to fight on two fronts: on the one hand, there’s Mr. Bashar al-Assad, supported by the Iranians and the Russians; and on the other hand, the terrorist movements. That’s why we’re going to have a meeting on Sunday involving the 11 countries that make up the so-called “Core Group” in the presence of Mr. Ahmad al-Jarba who has just been re-elected as president of the moderate opposition and we will discuss the situation. The moderate opposition will meet again on January 17, following our meeting in Paris.

This is where we are. We believe Geneva-2 -- provided its mandate is fulfilled -- is necessary. We call on all parties to make an effort to participate in the conference, but in accordance with the mandate. If Geneva-2 takes place – as we hope it will – there will be a second difficulty, namely the need to achieve concrete results.

If we want a political solution, we have to talk to each other. At the same time – and this is a request that I reiterate to the international community – we must put an end to the atrocities, to the terrible bombing that’s taking place and address the humanitarian needs.

The opposition is right to demand that, in parallel to Geneva-2, humanitarian corridors be established and the bombing cease.

U.S. accepts Iran’s participation in Geneva-2

Clockwise from top, Iran's Ali Khamenei, Fabius, Lavrov and Kerry

The United States is said today to have approved the participation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Geneva-2 on Syria.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will meet his Russian and French counterparts in Paris on Monday ahead of the expected international conference on Syria.

Kerry and Sergei Lavrov will meet "to continue discussions from their meeting just a few weeks ago in Russia, and provide updates as they plan ahead for the international conference on Syria," a State Department official said in a statement Friday.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius will also take part in what a Western diplomat said would be a "working dinner" in a restaurant in the French capital.

Russia said on Friday the Damascus regime had agreed "in principle" to participate in international talks that have been dubbed Geneva-2.

The first Geneva meeting, in June 2012, ended in a broad agreement aimed at forming a transition government in Syria.

But the deal was never implemented because it left open the key question of whether President Bashar al-Assad could be part of the transitional government.

Elie Chalhoub, co-founder and managing editor of al-Akhbar daily, which is Iran-Assad-Hezbollah’s mouthpiece in Lebanon, gives this account of Iran joining Geneva-2:

What is noteworthy about the Geneva-2 brouhaha is Iran’s insouciant attitude toward the United States.

Tehran takes her participation in Geneva-2 with much insouciance after receiving word from Russia saying: “We’ve been officially notified that the United States has opted to change its position on Syria.”

Sources in Tehran say the message to Iranian officials came in a briefing by Lavrov on his May 7 meeting with Kerry in Moscow.

According to the note, Kerry told his Russian host: “You have to realize the United States is not like a motorbike, which can make a full 180-degree turnaround from a dead stop. The United States being more like a tractor and a trailer, it can travel through small neighborhoods and narrow streets, perhaps knocking a few structures and stationary cars on the way. But it ultimately makes the u-turn.”

Proof of the message’s authenticity is that the United States has approved Iran’s participation in Geneva-2.

In her column today for Beirut’s independent daily an-Nahar, political analyst Rosanna Boumounsef writes in part:

Lebanese officials have zero hope of Geneva-2 ending the Syria war. They talk from their familiarity with the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, which plunged the country in internal, regional and international conflicts lasting 15 years. What started as a Christian-Palestinian incident ended as a Christian-Christian war with Arab, international, Israeli and Iranian players joining in-between.

Saying it is a dead duck, the officials compare Geneva-2 on Syria to the fruitless meetings of Lebanese leaders in Geneva and Lausanne 30 years ago.

(In 1983, a meeting in Geneva of representatives from the major Lebanese factions for a national dialogue conference achieved little progress. They were able to agree on only one issue, the Arab identity of Lebanon. When the representatives reconvened in Lausanne in 1984, they were unable to make any further progress.)

The Lebanese civil war did not end before the leaders approved and signed the 1989 Taef Agreement.

Some of the officials also cite the example of peace talks to end the Vietnam War.

The United States and Hanoi agreed to enter into preliminary peace talks in Paris in 1968. However, almost as soon as the talks were started, they stalled. When peace talks resumed in Paris on January 8, 1973, an accord was reached swiftly. The peace agreement was formally signed on January 27, 1973.

Big Powers seek table partners for Moaz al-Khatib

Syrian Revolution artwork by Manar Qanah

Moaz al-Khatib’s startling, six-week-old “personal” offer of talks with representatives of President Bashar al-Assad risks undoing the Syrian National Coalition he leads.

The SNC politburo and assembly promptly and formally dismissed the proposal he made in late January (see my posts of Feb. 15 and Feb. 22).

But the suggestion is not going away and remains very much alive.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters at the State Department yesterday:

It is inevitable and true of every single opposition in any kind of circumstance like this that there are tensions and differences of opinion as they find their footing, and there’s no surprise in that. So we have to work quietly and effectively with the international community. There are lots of people involved and engaged with the Syrian opposition. You could remember a year ago that they were completely un-unified and spoke without one voice.

So we will continue to work with them. I’m not going to vouch on any process over which we don’t have control, but I will tell you that they are adamant, all of them, about what they’re fighting for. And the cause is the cause of the Syrian people. And they have committed themselves to a broad-based government that is going to represent all of the people of Syria, even as there may be some dissension as to tactics or process among them. So you have to have some patience in this process even as you approach it with care. And I think that’s exactly what we’re doing.

We want to stop the killing. And they want to stop the killing. The world wants to stop the killing. And we want to be able to see Assad and the Syrian opposition come to the table for the creation of a transitional government according to the framework that was created in Geneva, the Geneva Protocol, which requires mutual consent on both sides to the formation of that transitional government.

That’s what we’re pushing for. And to do that, you have to have President Assad change his calculation so he doesn’t believe he can shoot it out endlessly, but you also need a cooperative Syrian opposition to come to the table, too. We’re working on it, and we will continue to work on it.

Laurent Fabius

Laurent Fabius, Kerry’s French counterpart, elaborated further.

He told the foreign affairs committee of the National Assembly that France, Russia and the United States are trying to draw up a list of Syrian officials with whom the SNC can negotiate.

"We worked together on an idea... of a list of Syrian officials who would be acceptable to Syria's opposition National Coalition," he said.

Fabius said Khatib had said in a "very brazen manner" that he was willing to negotiate with some regime officials but not Assad.

"We have discussed this with the Russians and the Americans... There have been exchanges to seek a political solution," he said.

Farah Atassi

Overnight, Syrian American activist Farah Atassi reacted on her Facebook page writing in Arabic:

Which regime figures and Syrian officials would negotiate Assad’s exit? The Syrian revolution spent two years looking for them.

When Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, Yemen, China, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia – the Assad regime’s official mouthpiece – avow publicly they can’t convince or force Assad to step down, which prodigious Superman, Batman and Grendizer will assume the task?

Are the French, the Americans and the Europeans pulling the wool over our eyes or their own?

James Clapper

America’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper yesterday told a Senate Intelligence Committee on global security threats that forces seeking to oust Assad are gaining strength and territory, but the Syrian opposition remains fragmented and is grappling with an infusion of militant foreign fighters.

"The question comes up, 'How long will Assad last?' And our standard answer is, 'His days are numbered. We just don't know the number.' Our assessment is that he is very committed to hanging in there and sustaining his control of the regime," Clapper told the Senate panel.

Assad's government is losing territory and experiencing shortages in manpower and logistics, Clapper said. But at the same time, there are "literally hundreds" of cells of opposition fighters over which leaders are struggling to impose more centralized command and control.

Clapper noted a growing presence among Assad's opponents of foreign fighters, many associated with al-Nusra Front, an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq that has gained strength in Syria partly by offering services to a population beaten down by two years of civil war.

"They are, where they can, providing more and more municipal services in what is a very terrible situation from a humanitarian standpoint," Clapper said.

Henry Kissinger

Last Friday, Henry Kissinger took questions at the annual corporate conference of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan later wrote in part on Peggy Noonan’s Blog:

Kissinger of course is an iconic figure in the history of foreign affairs, a statesman and historian of statesmanship. He will be 90 soon but he’s taken the opposite of the usual trajectory of those formerly in power. Normally the longer you’ve been from high office the smaller you seem. Kissinger has retained his gravity and presence, and his foreign-policy mystique has in fact grown since he left the secretary of state’s office in 1977. In part this may be because he thinks about, writes about and supports the idea that great nations need grand strategies…

From my notes:

On Syria: “Someone who chooses ophthalmology as a career is not a man driven by huge concepts of state.” President Bashar Assad’s father would have been ruthless too in similar circumstances, but also “more skilled in diplomacy.”

“It would be better if Assad left,” Kissinger said. America’s concern is to have “a non-radical outcome.” The question is what Syria would look like after the fall of Assad. “In the abstract, an outcome that permits the various ethnic groups a certain autonomy” is desirable.

We should be aware of Russia’s anxieties. “They are genuinely worried about the spread of radicalism,” he said. “Radicalism that would fall from Syria would reach them first.”

“If we can make a strategic agreement with Russia, we would have to take it to the Arab world.”

“Whatever we do . . . in my life we’ve had four wars which we entered with great enthusiasm and did not know how to end.” We want an outcome that takes account of “humanitarian concerns” and “is not radical.” We should do what we can “short of American ground forces.”

On the Obama administration’s foreign policy: “They are skillful in handling tactical aspects of situations.” But “they have not been able to put this together into a strategic overview of where we’re going… I don’t think they’re disliked but they’re not fully trusted anywhere. Nobody knows where they’re going.”

A cacophony of sound bites pounds Syria

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal yesterday called for Syrian rebels to be given anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to “level the playing field” in their fight to remove President Bashar al-Assad.

“I’m not in government so I don’t have to be diplomatic. I assume we’re sending weapons and if we were not sending weapons it would be a terrible mistake on our part,” he said in a televised debate at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Prince Turki, co-founder of the King Faisal Foundation and board chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is the son of the late King Faisal and brother of the kingdom’s foreign minister. He studied at Princeton, Cambridge and Georgetown universities before serving in succession over the years as adviser to royal court, intelligence chief, ambassador to the UK and Ireland, and finally ambassador to the United States.

“You have to level the playing field. Most of the weapons the rebels have come from captured Syrian stocks and defectors bringing their weapons,” he said.

“What is needed are sophisticated, high-level weapons that can bring down planes, can take out tanks at a distance. This is not getting through.”

But Prince Turki said foreign powers should have enough information on the many rebel brigades to ensure weapons only reached non-extremist groups.

Extremists are flowing into Syria from North Africa, Europe and other regions to fight with opposition forces, he said.

“Stop the killing and you won’t have these terrorists, they won’t have any place to go in Syria,” the Saudi prince said. Their presence was predicted from day one in the event of a prolonged crisis. The answer is to channel funds to “the good guys” among the opposition.

"You can select the good guys and give them these means and build their credibility," he said. "Now they don't have the means, and the extremists have the means and are getting the prestige."

“Sixty thousand people have been killed already,” Prince Turki said. “Do we have to wait for double or triple that number to die before Assad leaves?”

Pressed on the thorny issue whether the opposition’s allies are sending weapons into Syria, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said: “The Turkish people have helped the refugees with their humanitarian needs and also the Syrian people to defend themselves by the best means… The Syrian people know what we are doing, how we are helping.”

Panelists agreed there must be a political solution in Syria.

Syria has become a “proxy war” with different countries trying to defend or impose their own interests, said Ghassan Salamé, Dean of The Paris School of International Affairs. Any solution could take many years unless one of two things happens, he said. Either one side must prevail militarily, or a political solution must be imposed on the various players from outside. “I don’t see another way out of this,” he said.

“Europeans, Arabs, Chinese, Russians: we’re all committing a crime by watching people in Syria die,” Salamé said, warning the worst was yet to come if the battle for Damascus begins in earnest. That is likely to be devastating and send many thousands more refugees into Lebanon and Jordan.

Jordan’s Abdullah

Also speaking yesterday in Davos during a panel appearance with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Jordan’s King Abdullah warned, “Anyone who says that Bashar’s regime has got weeks to live really doesn't know the reality on the ground."

“They still have capability. ... So (I expect) a strong showing for at least the first half of 2013,” he said.

Nonetheless, fears are growing Syria may implode as the protracted conflict gets nastier.

Any fragmentation of the country into small states would be “catastrophic and something that we would be reeling from for decades to come,” Abdullah said.

He also warned of the threat of foreign jihadist fighters now in Syria.

Al-Qaeda has been established there for the past year and is getting support “from certain quarters,” the king said.

“They are a force to contend with, so even if we got the best government into Damascus tomorrow, we have at least two or three years of securing our borders from them coming across and to clean them up,” he said.

Comparing the militant threat with that seen in Afghanistan, Abdullah said: "The new Taliban we are going to have to deal with will be in Syria.”

Abdullah appealed for greater international help for more than 300,000 Syrian refugees who have already fled over the border into Jordan and are suffering in the grip of a cruel winter.

He also urged the stockpiling of humanitarian supplies that could be taken across Syria's borders, to try to keep people from leaving -- and to win hearts and minds.

“If these people start to starve and they don't have fuel and electricity and water, and hospitals are not running, that's when radicalization comes in and take advantage,” the king said.

Henry Kissinger

Richard Nixon, Hafez Assad and Henry Kissinger (syrianhistory.com)

Also touching on Syria in his wide-ranging address to business leaders at the Forum in Davos earlier on Thursday was the Nixon Administration’s secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who brokered the Syria-Israel disengagement agreement with Bashar’s father Hafez Assad in March 1974.

Kissinger called on Washington and Moscow to work together to solve the Syria crisis.

He counseled “an American-Russian understanding as a first step towards defining what the objective is,” adding: “The Syrian problem would best be dealt with internationally by Russia and America not making it a contest of national interest.”

The Syrian conflict, initially seen as a fight of democracy against dictatorship, has transformed into a conflict between various ethnic groups, leaving the international community with a dilemma. “The outside world finds that if it intervenes militarily, it will be in the middle of a vast ethnic conflict; and if it doesn’t intervene militarily, it will be caught in a humanitarian tragedy,” said Kissinger.

While a number of outcomes are possible –- Assad staying in office, a total “Sunnite” victory, or an emergence of a loose federation of various ethnic groups –- what is clear is that “the more the outside world competes, the worse it gets,” he said.

John Kerry

John Kerry, the incoming secretary of state who met several times over the years with Bashar, did not mention Syria in his opening statement at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.

But when pressed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about getting more directly involved in helping the Syrian rebels, Kerry said he needs time to understand the situation better.

McCain, part of a bipartisan group of senators which just got back from a trip to the Middle East and visited Syrian refugees camps, told Kerry they feel “an anger and frustration” and believe the United States is indifferent to their suffering.

One Syrian teacher told McCain and the other senators, “This next generation of children will take revenge on those that did not help them.”

McCain added, “We are sowing the wind in Syria and we are going to reap the whirlwind.”

He said, “We can do a lot more, without putting boots on the ground” – such as a no-fly zone – and he complained that “all I get, frankly, from the (Obama) administration is the fall of Assad is, quote, ‘inevitable.’ I agree, but what about what happens in the meantime?”

Another member of the delegation that toured the Middle East, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., complained to Kerry that U.S. humanitarian aid intended for Syrian refugees “has not reached the people on the ground.”

Kerry and McCain at the confirmation hearing

In response to both Coons and McCain, Kerry said “if you have a complete implosion of the state” in Syria after Assad’s fall, it would greatly increase the risk that Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal would fall into the wrong hands.

Asked about the personal bond he once had with Assad, Kerry said there was a moment where Syria reached out to the West but that the moment has long passed.

“Sometimes there are moments where you may be able to get something done in foreign policy, and if the moment somehow doesn’t ripen correctly or get seized, you miss major opportunities,” he said.

"History caught up to us. That never happened. And it's now moot, because he (Assad) has made a set of judgments that are inexcusable, that are reprehensible, and I think is not long for remaining as the head of state in Syria," the senator said. "I think the time is ticking."

Kerry also said: “We need to change Bashar Assad’s calculation. Right now President Assad doesn’t think he’s losing -- and the opposition thinks it is winning.”

Kerry said the goal of U.S. policy is a peaceful transition to a new government.

He said he hoped to confer with the Russians and with others and “increase the readiness of President Assad to see that the die is cast, the handwriting is on the wall….”

“I don’t want inquisitiveness or curiosity about what possibilities might exist with the Russians to be translated into optimism. I don’t have optimism. I have hope,” the senator said.

Coons told Kerry, “We frankly face a very narrow window to make a difference on the ground in support of the opposition.”  

“I get it,” Kerry answered, but he said he was worried about who would control the country if Assad were forced out of power.

Laurent Fabius

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in his annual New Year's address to the press there was no sign the Syria war was going to end anytime soon, in contrast to his prediction last month that the end was near for Assad.

"Things are not moving. The solution we had hoped for, and by that I mean the fall of Bashar and the arrival of the [opposition’s National] Coalition to power, has not happened," he said.

France was the first to recognize the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

Fabius told RFI radio in December "the end is nearing" for Assad. On Thursday, he said international mediation and discussions about the crisis were not getting anywhere.

"There are no recent positive signs," he said.

He said National Coalition leaders and representatives of some 50 nations and organizations would meet in Paris on Monday to discuss how to fulfill previous commitments. He did not elaborate.

Syria: Provisional government is next big hot potato

A contested crossing point to Syria

France’s call for the speedy formation of a Syrian provisional government is a political hot potato for the Syrian opposition.

With Kofi Annan’s troubleshooting mission dead and buried, and internecine fighting raging across Syria, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Saturday:

Whatever its maneuvers, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is being condemned by its own courageous people.

We have been in contact with Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani and others to find a solution to the 16-month crisis in Syria.

We all agree the time has come to prepare the transition and the day after.

Time has come for the opposition to get going in order to take command of the country.

We look forward to the rapid formation of a provisional government, which should be representative of the diversity of Syrian society.

France fully supports the efforts of the Arab League in this direction

We are ready for any initiative, including the hosting of a ministerial meeting in Paris to consolidate the efforts of Arab countries in building the Syria of tomorrow.

Along with the European Union, we are also trying to provide help and necessary support to the increasing number of refugees, in cooperation with neighboring countries.

Annan’s plan called for a political “transitional government” in Damascus led by Syria and comprising both loyalist and opposition figures whereas a “provisional government” as proposed by France would be set up solely by the opposition.

As explained by Wikipedia, a “provisional government” is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a very large government… Provisional governments are generally unelected and tend to arise in association with or in the aftermath of civil or foreign wars.”

In addition to provisional governments established by European nations under Nazi occupation, Wikipedia lists some 20 other examples of provisional governments active in the 20^th and 21st centuries.

It is still unclear if the Arab League’s Syria task group meeting in Doha tonight would endorse the idea of the Syrian opposition setting up a provisional government.

Represented on the Syria task group, in addition to Elaraby, are Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Qatar and Oman.

The big question of course is whether the Syrian opposition groups can see eye to eye on a representative provisional government, its political program and lineup.

To their credit, the oppositions groups were able to endorse plans for a new democratic, pluralistic and civilian Syria at their two-day meeting earlier this month at Arab League headquarters in Cairo. (See my July 4 post, “Syria opposition thrashes out post-Assad roadmap”).

Advantages of the opposition’s umbrella group known as the Syrian National Council (SNC) making common cause with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCCs) to co-opt other opposition factions and grassroots activists and set up a Syrian Provisional Government (SPG) are many.

As the brainchild of France and the Arab League, I suppose SPG would, among other things:

• be recognized upon declaration as legitimate representative of the Syrian people in most Western and Arab capitals.
• be able to open offices in key world capitals to muster support for post-Assad Syria and solicit, coordinate and then apportion donor assistance.
• create a credible vehicle for approaching other governments
• demonstrate seriousness of planning, entice participation of Syria’s internal opposition, encourage defections and increase pressure on Assad
• allow opposition leaderships to build unity and trust and gradually gel in a common political body.
• provide international legal status to FSA combatants.
• potentially dilute ethnic and sectarian sensitivities and interests.

By the way, I learned today that the most notable provisional government was the Russian Provisional Government in 1917.