The West must understand that if it wants a pragmatic solution to the Syrian crisis, it should allow Syrians to choose their leader. The best possible way forward is a transitional government comprising Assad and members of the Opposition
The January 24 Geneva II conference, the biggest diplomatic endeavour led by the UN to resolve the political and humanitarian crises in Syria, has proved to be a damp squib. Perturbed by the Syrian National Coalition’s precondition, the regime threatened to quit peace talks in Geneva. “The problem is that these people do not want to make peace, they are coming here with preconditions,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. The summit, taken forward from Geneva I negotiations held on June 2012, flopped primarily because the West and anti-Assad powers tried to manipulate the main agenda of the Geneva 1 communiqué — a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed on the basis of “mutual consent” involving “members of the present Government and the Opposition”.
The world had high expectations from Geneva II as the diplomatic efforts between Russia and the US had in the past yielded results with Assad delivering on his promise to dismantle its chemical weapons. Assad’s willingness to take part in Geneva II was thus seen as another success of the US-Russia diplomatic efforts. However, when the intentions of the powerful players are not pure, the 40-odd nations’ keenness to go into a huddle with warring Syrian parties in Geneva on January 24 was just a futile exercise. The West and Syrian National Coalition’s insistence on Assad’s removal from the proposed transitional government is clearly a breach of the Geneva communiqué of Action Group on Syria.
Post-mortem
Although some commentators consider the very fact that Geneva II took place as a hope for successful negotiations on the Syrian crisis in future, if we analyse the backdrop under which the summit was held, it seems Syria’s future is bleak. There are primarily four reasons for Geneva II’s failure.
1) West adamancy on Assad: Geneva II talks got stuck on Assad’s role in the proposed transitional Government in Syria. As both Assad’s forces and rebels are formidable adversaries in terms of military power they are not willing to make any concessions. Assad will never accept the West and Opposition Syrian National Coalition’s demand for his removal from a future Government, and the Islamist-led rebels will rather pin more hopes on their military power. Although as per the Geneva I communiqué, Assad’s exclusion from a transitional Government was not on the agenda of Geneva II, the US-led West considers Assad’s survival as a threat to their interests in the region which are already facing a covert competition between the US’ partner Saudi Arabia and Iran. Despite the fact that the Assad regime alone can’t be accused of the large-scale violence and displacement of Syrian citizens, the West is leaving no stone unturned to paint him as a villain. It is not a war between Assad’s forces and Syrian citizens, rather between Assad and Islamists who have highjacked the civil movement. The US-led powers are seeking half-baked solutions with half-truths. The need of the hour is to stop the humanitarian crisis by ending violence from both sides in Syria.
What is happening in Syria is not a social and political movement. Non-violence is the precondition of a fruitful social/political movement, as violent means fail to churn out a democratic leadership from the movement. Those who speak the language of the bullet must be dealt with in the same way, but at the same time the Government can’t be allowed to be an unaccountable brute. So it would have been better if the parties to the talks focused on these issues. But the UN and world powers failed to make both Assad and the rebels accountable to the Syrians. A year after the West accused Assad of using chemical weapons against its own citizens and the subsequent denial of charge by the Assad Government, innocent Syrians still do not know who used chemical weapons.
2) Can’t trust the US for a viable solution: Ironically when the West is already facing a Frankenstein syndrome in the form of Al-Qaeda, there are reports that some French nationals are also voluntarily joining the ranks of terror groups to fight against Syrian forces. France’s Interior Minister has officially claimed that French teens are going to Syria for jehad. The war cry to oust President Assad has attracted thousands of Europeans. When these fighters will return home, the Western countries will face the real test of their efforts to remove Assad. As per a Daily Telegraph report British fighters in Syria are being taught jehadism. An Al-Qaeda defector named Murad has claimed that the new recruits are being sent back after training to form terror cells locally.
3) Participants missing: Iran’s exclusion from Geneva II is a bad omen. On the anti-Assad front, the absence of Islamic Front, which is the largest fighting group with 45,000 Islamist fighters, is also questionable. As they have already rejected Geneva II tweeting that Syria’s future would be “formulated here on the ground of heroism,” it is pertinent for the mediators to clarify whether Syria’s National Coalition is an authorised representative of all opposition forces. Will those rejecting talks accept a peaceful resolution and shun violence. Moreover, even if a consensus between the Assad regime and the National Coalition had been arrived at, it would have been a Herculean task for mediators to implement it on the ground.
4) Conflicting goals: The two warring parties reached Geneva with conflicting goals. While the US-led Western nations backed Syrian National Coalition’s condition of a Syrian Government without Assad, the regime came with the agenda of seeking a mandate to fight against extremist fighters linked to Al-Qaeda. “The Geneva conference must lead to clear results regarding the fight against terrorism in Syria. More specifically, it must result in putting pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria by sending fighters, money to terrorists organisations, sending weapons,” declared Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem. As there is no common ground on which a successful resolution could be arrived at, Geneva II was destined to fail.
Consequences
The distrust shown in Iran by the West may impact the nuclear deal in the long run. Even though both sides have discounted its impact on the nuclear deal, taking into account the enthusiasm among Iranians after the invitation to participate in Geneva II, the forced UN U-turn has already ruffled Iran’s feathers.
Moreover, a solution from outside can’t solve a political imbroglio in Syria. The US must understand that if it wants a pragmatic solution to the Syrian crisis, it should allow Syrians to choose their leader. Ironically, Syria’s National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar had a few days ahead of Geneva II said: “Neither Geneva II, not Geneva III nor Geneva X will solve the Syrian crisis.”
The mediators can prove him wrong only if they stop pushing for Assad’s removal and rather stick to the Geneva I communiqué which proposed a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed on the basis of “mutual consent” involving “members of the present Government and the Opposition”.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)