The Syrian Geneva II peace conference opened on Wednesday with Syria’s government and main political Opposition trading bitter accusations. Although expectations are not high for the outcome of these talks, the fact that they are being held is at least a step in the right direction.
A settlement at this early stage is definitely out of the question, but any sort of truce, however limited, would be a major achievement because it would help with the delivery of much-needed humanitarian supplies. The release of detainees would also be a welcome step.
The conference got off to an awkward start with United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon first asking Iran to attend the talks and then withdrawing the invitation after the Obama administration expressed its disapproval.
To further complicate matters, the Syrian Opposition threatened to walk out of the negotiations if Tehran participated in them. Many observers, however, believe Washington should reconsider its position on Iran’s participation in such talks, especially since Teheran, a major ally of Assad, has now adopted a policy of engagement with the international community over its nuclear programme.
The long-awaited talks began in Montreux with speeches from all delegates, including the Syrian government, represented by Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and by and Opposition, represented by Ahmed Jarba, head of the National Coalition. Both blamed each other for the conflict, but they at least did not walk out of the conference.
On Friday, the talks moved to Geneva, where negotiations began, moderated by Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria, who said the talks were aimed at “saving Syria”.
The government and rebel delegations were in separate rooms and conducted negotiations through a UN mediator.
Yesterday, the two sides met briefly face to face for about half an hour but did not speak directly. Even this, however, is being hailed as a significant step, as it is the first time since the war began three years ago that the government and Opposition have met.
The main stumbling block to an overall settlement in Syria remains the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, a key demand of the Opposition. US Secretary of State John Kerry said during the peace talks that there was no way at all that Assad could remain in power. Kerry said: “There is no way – no way possible in the imagination – that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain the legitimacy to govern.”
However, the Syrian government is adamant that their President will remain in power and earlier on Wednesday Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said: “There will be no transfer of power and President Bashar Assad is staying.” The Syrian government also considers “ending terrorism” as its top priority – it calls terrorists anyone who has taken up arms against the government.
It is, of course, absurd to think that Assad can have a role in any future Syrian government; he is largely responsible for this conflict, which has killed at least 130,000 Syrians. Assad’s immediate response when peaceful protests first took place in 2011 was simply to kill the demonstrators. From day one, he showed absolutely no interest at all in any sort of dialogue and his philosophy has always been to do whatever is necessary in order for him and his clique to remain in power.
This has meant killing, torturing and arresting his opponents, or perceived opponents, as well as indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, using chemical weapons and starving entire populations. There is no doubt that Assad is a war criminal and has committed crimes against humanity, so there can certainly be no place for him in a future Syria, where he surely won’t be able to contribute to the country’s stability.
Last Tuesday, for example, a team of internationally renowned war crimes prosecutors and forensic experts said it found “direct evidence” of “systematic torture and killing” by the Assad regime. Their report was based on thousands of photographs of dead bodies of detainees killed in Syrian prisons, which were leaked to CNN and The Guardian newspaper.
Republican Senator John McCain said last week that President Barack Obama was worse than Jimmy Carter when it comes to Syria
Naturally, the leaks were intentionally designed to coincide with the Geneva peace talks, in order to weaken the position of the Syrian government, but this does not make them less credible.
Despite this, a lack of agreement over Assad’s future should not be allowed to derail the talks. A truce is what is badly needed at the moment, as well as the release of detainees (if there are any who are still alive) and if this means negotiating with the Assad regime, so be it.
It is true that the summit is discussing the 2012 Geneva communiqué, which outlines a political transition plan for Syria, but the immediate priority is to get aid to those in need, a limited truce and the establishment of UN administered ‘safe havens’ where civilians will be guaranteed protection by the international community.
Some international media reports, however, have quoted sources, even Syrian government delegation sources in Geneva, as saying that discussions might actually start tomorrow on the possibility of a transitional government in Syria. I find this difficult to believe, but a number of reports are also saying that both sides are planning to be in Geneva until the end of the week. If true, that is surely a positive sign.
The US, which has faced much criticism over its placid stand in Syria –Republican Senator John McCain said last week that President Barack Obama was worse than Jimmy Carter when it comes to Syria – also needs to review its reluctance to supply arms to the moderate rebels fighting both the Assad regime and the jihadists linked to al-Qaeda.
After all, both sides will only negotiate in good faith when they know they cannot win this conflict by military means.
America has already ruled out military strikes against Assad (unless he goes back on his chemical weapons agreement), who is armed and backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, so its options are already very limited. The jihadists, on the other hand, are well armed and supported by a number of Gulf states; this is why they have unfortunately overshadowed the under-funded moderates.
There are definitely no easy solutions to this very complicated conflict and the Geneva conference is not going to come up with an instant fix.
The international community, however, particularly the US and its allies, must continue to engage in diplomacy and exercise patience. The Syrian conflict must at least be contained, preferably by an agreement over a truce, which could possibly be the basis of a solution in the long term.