Here is the situation. We don't really have a mission or a mechanism with reports that are binding on the international community, unfortunately. What we need are two things. The first is monitoring mechanisms on the ground. What is really happening on the ground? We need to periodically gather facts about what is happening on the ground. If these developments are against international law—nowadays, actually, many people don't even comply with international law. Still, there's the issue of democratic governance, the issue of autonomy and the issue of women's rights.
When I said in my speech that any kind of support and legitimacy should only be granted based on conditionality, those conditions should be specified clearly. For example, when the U.S. Congress was trying to balance the U.S. administration, they came up with a discussion, a good debate, and actually set some conditions. If the Syrian president, the new regime, does this and that, we will continue our support, but there is no blank cheque; you can't just get our support and then go and kill some minorities in Syria.
In that sense, we need institutional monitoring mechanisms and periodic reports, and if the government is not scoring well, then there should be negotiations. There should be constant pressure on the government. To be honest, in terms of ideological and political orientation, the current president is pragmatic because he needs international legitimacy and support. However, in terms of his ideological and political orientation, to be honest, we don't trust him and we think he should do more to gain the trust of and legitimacy from the international community.