Is it possible that the abysmal situation in Syria – clearly a stain on the world’s conscience – has finally prompted the international community to give diplomacy a chance at ending this dreadful conflict?
Over the last few weeks, there have been a number of diplomatic initiatives, some of them secret (which the international media found out about), involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Russia – who together can end this war – aimed at trying to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria.
The situation in Syria is indeed bleak: four- and-a-half years after the civil war started in March 2011, more than 320,000 people have died, including at least 11,493 children, and more than 1.5 million are believed to have been wounded. Over 12 million Syrians have fled their homes: 7.6 million are internally displaced, while the rest have escaped to neighbouring countries, namely Turkey (1.6 million), Lebanon (1.7 million), Jordan (623,241), Iraq (242,468) and Egypt (136,661). A further 150,000 have been given asylum in the European Union. Syria represents the worst refugee crisis since World War II.
The war is very complicated. It has been characterised by war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity taking place on a regular basis. The regime of President Bashar al-Assad is fighting for its survival and has committed terrible atrocities, including using chemical weapons against its opponents. The Islamic State, which established a foothold in Syria (and Iraq) about a year-and-a-half ago, and which has overshadowed all the other rebel groups, carries out atrocious, horrendous crimes against humanity on a daily basis and today controls half of Syria’s land area.
The Syrian regime is also fighting against the Western-backed moderate rebels, a whole range of Islamist groups (not linked to Islamic State), most of whom are supported by the Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra. President Assad, who belongs to the Alawite minority (an offshoot of Shi’ite Islam) is backed by Russia, Iran and the Lebanese Shi’ite group Hizbollah, which has also sent troops to fight for the regime.
The result of four-and-half years of war has been a dangerous stalemate with Islamic State more or less holding on to its territory, despite airstrikes by a US-led coalition, a humanitarian disaster like we have never seen since World War II, President Assad still in office and a population which has been subjected to terrible suffering. The Christian minority, which represents about 10 per cent of Syria’s population, has found itself caught in the middle of this conflict and has been targeted by the jihadists of the Islamic State (like their fellow Christians as well as the Yazidi minority in Iraq). The Kurds, meanwhile, have been putting up a very brave fight against Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq.
Syria clearly represents a failure of the international community, in particular the UN Security Council, and most especially Russia and Iran, who have close links with Assad but who failed to urge the Syrian regime to compromise. Instead, Moscow and Teheran simply backed Assad unconditionally and continued to supply him with arms making any sort of dialogue with the moderate Opposition possible.
The war is very complicated. It has been characterised by war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity taking place on a regular basis
Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf States, on the other hand, even though belonging to the anti-Islamic State coalition, bear responsibility for supporting some of the Islamist groups operating in the anti-Assad camp, some of whom are believed to have ties to al-Nusra.
Then again the United States can’t claim that its Syria policy has been a success story. The Obama administration has had a number of foreign policy successes, but Syria is not one of them, although it has to be pointed out that the US’s options were limited, the Syrian conflict is particularly complicated and Washington has virtually no leverage over the regime in Damascus. However, the Syrian conflict has pointed to a number of intelligence failings by the US, namely that it didn’t anticipate how determined Assad was to remain in power at all costs, nor did it foresee the rise of the Islamic State.
Some of the diplomatic encounters of the last week, however, could suggest that the international community is finally willing to give diplomacy a chance in Syria. In Qatar, talks were held on Syria between the US Secretary of State, the Russian Foreign Minister and the Saudi Foreign Minister; in Oman, one of the few countries in the region with strong ties to both Iran and the Gulf States, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem held talks after meeting with Iranian and Russian officials in Tehran. The visit has created talk of a possible meeting of Saudi, Syrian and Iranian officials in Muscat.
In Riyahd, furthermore, reports have emerged of a landmark meeting of senior Syrian and Saudi intelligence officials; in Moscow there have been a number of high-profile visitors, including the Saudi Foreign Minister and a number of Syrian Opposition leaders; and the Iranian Foreign Minister visited a number of Middle Eastern and South Asian countries to promote a new peace plan.
What has led to this sudden flurry of diplomatic activity? First of all, I hope that it is the realisation that the situation in Syria is simply unsustainable and that there can never be a military solution. However, the recent Iranian nuclear deal has meant that Teheran is now able to play more of a constructive international role – and it can certainly contribute to a political settlement in Syria, which it seems it wants to do.
Russia and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, are somewhat suspicious of a possible rapprochement between the US and Iran – Moscow because Teheran is its ally and Riyahd because it is very mistrustful of Shi’ite Iran – and do not want to lose influence in the region. They might therefore be more willing to play a constructive regional role aimed at arriving at a settlement in Syria.
What is certain, however, is that the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria all have a common enemy: Islamic State, which is a direct threat to them all and which threatens the entire region. The fact that Islamic State controls half of Syria is extremely worrying and without a political settlement in the country the jihadists will never be defeated.
The problem is that when it comes to this political solution there have, until now, been differences over what to do about President Assad. The position of the US and Saudi Arabia has been that Assad must go while Iran and Russia argued that he is the legitimate President of Syria who has an important role in the fight against IS.
However, it is possible that the two sides are now willing to compromise. Moscow now says its backing is not directly for Assad but for the legitimate government of Syria. And the US no longer insists that Assad must go before a political settlement is reached.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have not yet directly hinted that they are willing to change their position, but with all the recent diplomatic activity it looks likely that the two will adopt more of a flexible attitude.
For Syria’s sake, I hope this is the case.