The ongoing peace talks between the warring parties in Syria have not had immediate results on the ground inside Syria. And it does not look like any substantial results will come soon. The second round of talks ended last week without even getting close to a consensus. Fighting is ongoing throughout the war-torn country and barrel bombs have been dropping non-stop on Aleppo, Syria’s largest city.
However, the very fact that the two sides are actually sitting down at one table indicates they have finally come to realize that only a negotiated solution can bring an end to Syria’s bloody three-year civil war.
The two main architects of the Geneva II Conference – Russia and the United States – are undoubtedly aware that the talks might be derailed by events on the ground. But they are also convinced that neither Assad’s troops nor the opposition forces can determine the course of the conflict through warfare. Therefore, Moscow and Washington have pushed hard to ensure that the convention was set up successfully. Everything that emerges from it they will address later. It was very important for them to speed up the process to save face in their thus-far-fruitless diplomatic efforts and to genuinely push for a permanent ceasefire.
It is clear that Geneva II is only the beginning of of a marathon negotiation between the Syrian regime and opposition -- two parties that had not come together since the eruption of the conflict in March 2011. It is obvious that the process will drag on for many months. If only the regime could commit to attend without creating obstacles, the course of the talks might speed up and some results could materialize. But before giving the final approval to attend to Geneva, Bashar Assad’s regime made sure that the talks would entirely focus on the rise of terrorism in Syria – especially when it became clear to Assad that the US administration had no interest in removing his regime militarily. The chemical weapons deal was another assurance for the regime that the quote “his days are numbered,” often used by US officials to refer to Assad, was not necessarily true. Therefore, the Syrian government sent its top negotiators to Geneva in the hope that terrorism was going to be the main topic on table.
But after the first round on January 24, Assad quickly realized that the tables were turned and that Geneva is really about bringing about a radical change to his game, in which he has long thought he has the upper hand. And that’s why the regime’s delegation in Geneva began to disrupt the talks. They understood that they were cornered by the UN and the US, probably with Russian acquiescence. As soon as the first round of talks wrapped up, the regime’s delegation swiftly returned to Damascus for consultations and preparations for the second round. When they reluctantly returned to Geneva, they mounted a steadfast campaign to divert the talks to their own purposes.
Geneva, for the regime and opposition alike, is perhaps the only exit from this crisis at the moment. The concessions the regime has made so far, allowing UN humanitarian teams to operate in Homs City, for example, is another sign of Assad’s desperation. But they also show that more results may emerge from Geneva. For now, the main objective for the international community should be to stop the bombardment on Aleppo. Once that has happened, the Geneva talks should focus on more practical matters such as a serious discussion on the future of Assad and the establishment of a transitional government.
Many predict that the Yemeni scenario is likely to be replicated in Syria, in the sense that a safe exit for Assad and his family would allow the opposition to deal with the remainder of the regime, particularly with those who have not been directly involved in killing civilians. But before doing so, there must be a way to bring in neutral Alawite figures that will ensure the participation of this minority group, to which Assad belongs, in any future transitional government. Other groups such as the Kurds are already represented at the talks. But the more results the Geneva talks can have inside Syria, the more likely that other groups (Christians and Druze, for instance) will support them.
Syrians on either side of the conflict have suffered too much. Fighting has proven futile. Geneva will not solve all the problems at once but it can certainly lead to concrete outcomes. But it most important that the international community, in particular Russia and the United States, stick to their commitment to resolve this costly humanitarian tragedy.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment