My must read of the day is "Syria calls presidential vote, defying Assad's opponents," in Reuters:
Syria set a presidential election for June 3 on Monday, preparing the ground for leader Bashar al-Assad to defy widespread opposition and extend his grip on power days after he said the war was turning in his favor.
Assad has not said whether he will stand in the election, but his allies in Russia and in Lebanon's Shi'ite movement Hezbollah have predicted he will stand and win. […]
Announcing the election on state television, parliamentary speaker Mohamed Jihad al-Laham said requests for nomination would be accepted until May 1. Voting for Syrians outside the country would take place at Syrian embassies on May 28, he said.
In March the Syrian parliament "set residency rules for presidential candidates." The rules required that anyone planning to run must have "maintained continuous, permanent residence" in Syria for a minimum of 10 years. It bars the majority of opposition candidates from running, since many have been exiled from the country.
The law, imposed by Assad’s government, largely eradicates the already narrow chances the Syrian people would get a fair election. Not to mention, it goes against the goals of the peace conference to establish a transitional governing body.
When the change was announced, Reuters’ reported, "a French diplomatic source told Reuters the proposed vote would effectively kill any Geneva peace process as the talks were predicated on steps towards a democratic transition."
To say the Geneva peace process is alive and well is laughable. A third round of negotiations are expected to take place, but the talks in January and February produced no results and throughout the negotiations violence in Syria increased, resulting in a death toll that was reportedly "higher … than in any other three-week period since the conflict began in March 2011."
Still the announcement of an election date is further evidence that the Syrian regime and the international community have profoundly different expectations (and plans) when it comes to moving forward. Assad’s government has no interest in holding fair elections, and they do not plan to work toward a transitional government.
If anyone was holding out hope that the Geneva conferences were time well spent, they should look at latest reports of violence and the proposed election date—Assad’s government has no intention of negotiating or backing down.