Total Pageviews

Friday 4 April 2014

The Syrian Conflict: Any Hopes From Geneva II?



"Don't expect anything from Geneva II. Neither Geneva II, not Geneva III nor Geneva X will solve the Syrian crisis. The solution has begun and will continue through the military triumph of the state."…….. Ali Haidar (Syria's National Reconciliation Minister)


From the frenzy immersions of the wave of the Arab Spring that swept across the Middle East in 2011, one nation where the simmering dregs of the revolution will not dry quickly is Syria.
From pockets of mild solidarity Arab Spring protest in 2011, the Syrian situation fast spiralled into a full blown irreconcilable civil war with the belligerents serving as proxy armies for regional powers from the Islamic Shia and Sunni divide in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
                                                                                  
Starting from political agitations, the Syrian conflict also smouldered along its major sectarian religious divide; thus making any peace settlement difficult as both parties to the conflict label the enemy as the infidels. Barring direct intervention from foreign powers across the West East divide, the Syrian situation continues to plunge to a hopeless abyss carnaging over 150,000 casualties and dispersing over 4 million of its citizens as refugees while leaving the once tranquil settlements of Homs, Aleppo, Deraa, Maloula as battlefield ruins.


Devasted Aleppo, the Industrial hub of Syria


After defying all appeasement avenues despite agreements and moves to dismantle Syria’s Chemical weapons arsenal, the US, UN and Russia agreed to bring the warring sides to Geneva to talk peace.

John Kerry (US), Lakhdar Brahimi and Sergei Lavrov (Russia) at the opening of the Geneva II Conference in January 2014

In the words of Ban ki Moon, he says it would be "unforgivable not to seize this opportunity" that has left more than 100,000 people dead and driven 9.5 million from their homes. And so for the first time during the Syrian conflict, Russia and the US had a common understanding to bring the warring parties to the negotiation table in what is to be known as Geneva II peace talks which was especially made urgent after the chemical attack in Ghouta on 21st August 2013.
As party to the Conflict, the Syrian government of Bashir Al Assad has to negotiate with the Syrian Opposition to achieve a tangible peace settlement for Syria. For the case of the Syrian opposition, there exists a wide gulf between the political and armed opposition although both parties are united in their desire to achieve a post Assad Syria. Compounding the position of the Syrian opposition is the divergent intentions of the armed opposition who are at best serving the interest by proxy of regional powers while the political opposition do not in effect have control over the armed opposition.
Coming to Geneva to negotiate may be a plausible attempt at achieving peace, and considering the devastatory depth of the Syrian conflict, necessary concessions must be made by the warring parties.
The government of Assad has to stay put at least for the short term future.
There cant be a successful military end to the conflict
Acknowledging this fact, a rebuilding phase can then be inaugurated via a transition government. Things may then begin to fall into place and twill be easy to rein down the extremists.
For all the care of the cause of the warring parties, the concern should shift from fluidic gains on the battle field to the welfare of Syria and her citizens. For all the world cares for, the Syrian conflict is becoming a pain in the neck for her much smaller neighbours in Lebanon and Jordan where the Syrian refugee crises is drowning the population of the host countries. With two rounds of the Geneva II talks ended, the hopes and fate of the Syrian people lies on a yet to be decided third round--- and will all parties learn from the past deadlocks? The only good thing is that the talks are in place. Hoping it does spring an eternal hope to end the stodgy nature of the Syrian conflict.
‘The Geneva process is destined to remain stagnant unless its patrons adapt to the realities on the ground and reframe what constitutes core political issues and points of negotiation. The current realities suggest that the solution of the battlefield is preferred to that of the negotiating table. Until this changes, the Geneva negotiations will remain political theatre’……Samer N Abboud (Assistant Professor of International Studies at Arcadia University,  Pennsylvania.)