Once again, the Syrian peace talks are in a deep predicament. Between the list of demands from the opposition and the noncooperation of the regime, negotiations have stalled.
This has put the United Nations under pressure to consider new options to bring both sides back to the negotiation table. Solving these challenges may involve the UN and the major world powers putting forward ideas the have not yet been considered. It will fall to the Syrian opposition to come up with alternative ways of dealing with the regime of Bashar Al Assad and its allies.
Last week, the opposition announced that it would abandon the Geneva talks until the regime met its demands to cease bombing rebel-held territory and allow humanitarian aid to enter the affected areas. While the opposition demands are in keeping with international law, the regime has turned a deaf ear to them.
The emotional and stimulating speech delivered by the Syrianopposition leader and the head of the high negotiations committee Riyad Hijab, was a great reminder to the world of the grievous situation in Syria. He said that it’s not morally right to be part of negotiations when Syrians are dying daily from sieges, hunger, bombings, poisonous gas and barrel bombs.
When I first heard Mr Hijab hinting in his speech of boycotting the negotiations altogether if the opposition’s demands were not taken seriously, a question jumped into my mind: what options other than negotiations does the opposition think it has?
The facts on the ground would suggest that it has no other choice than to negotiate. Despite the spread of many radical and non-radical armed groups all over Syria, the military situation still favours the regime. The opposition’s allies have not given it any assurances or real commitment of support for it to be confident enough to take any further steps.
When the United States secretary of state, John Kerry, warned again last week that if talks failed, the partition of Syria could be the “plan B”, it sent a clear signal that America has no intention to get rid of the Syrian regime any time soon.
It’s becoming more obvious that the world powers find it much easier to think of dividing the country than exerting pressure on Mr Al Assad to step down. Of course, it’s easier to move to plan B when Mr Al Assad is growing only more defiant and showing no willingness to make any concessions.
Those who are leaning towards the idea of partition cannot have imagined how a fragmented Syria would affect the world in general and the region in particular. Having to deal with a divided Syria would cause endless feuding in every country around it, and would create an undesirable headache for the whole world.
This whole scenario is partially the result of the vacuum created in the region by the United States’s neglect of Syria and the entrance of Russia and other international players. Perhaps these countries should carry more responsibility for the war and take their role in ending it more seriously.
Russia initially appeared inclined to exert some pressure on Mr Al Assad to give up power. But since the US president Barack Obama has adopted a policy of doing nothing for Syria, neither Russia nor the Assad regime has felt any pressure to make concessions.
The superpowers still have a chance to play a positive role in the Syrian negotiations. To do this, they must convince both the regime and all the components of the opposition that a military win on the ground for either side is nearly impossible. Every major outside power – whether it’s the United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or any other that has any influence on any side of the fight – should also come to the same conclusion. Once this happens, the door could be open to a solution.
It might help if those outside powers with a financial involvement or interest in Syria could bring to the table some deals and trade-offs that might benefit all of the warring parties. It would not be an easy approach, but it is at least an option that could be considered.
The Geneva talks are technically still going on. The Syrian government’s chief negotiator, Bashar Al Jaafari, has made fun of Mr Hijab’s speech. He said that the opposition leader should be more serious and was “acting like a baby”. He had already announced that the Syrian government is unwilling to continue if the current talks failed. Interestingly, the regime is even demanding a different set of opposition representatives to deal with.
The regime sees the talks as a marketing tool. What it really wants from the negotiations is a way to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of international community. The opposition, on the other hand, wants to take up power in Damascus right away. Both aims are imaginary. The Syrian regime won’t get its legitimacy back and, of course, the Russians know that. The Syrian opposition will not be able to rule in Damascus unless a miracle happens, radically changing the military situation on the ground.
Nonetheless, it is most important that the opposition not give up negotiations at this point. Its representatives should keep trying to get the maximum political benefit out of the Geneva talks.
During the Vietnam War, the fight was raging around the clock but peace negotiations continued either formally or through back channels.
The Syrian opposition should learn from this and never withdraw from negotiations. To do so would give the regime a chance to strengthen its position.
The UN special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has an ongoing mission to bring all the sides together around the table. To keep the dialogue going will take lots of courage, great will and some serious concessions. He will need support from both the Russian and the Americans, otherwise no good outcome can be expected.
The Syrian tragedy must come to an end. But the longer it takes to come to an end, the more devastating the situation will be. There will be more deaths, more destruction and more refugees. Dividing the country into pieces or sharing power in the way Russia has proposed – without any real change to the regime’s structure – will only mean that it will end where it started. It will be as if nothing has been accomplished.
The Syrian opposition must stay engaged in the political fight, even if the cease fire breaks apart completely. Negotiations should never stop.
It is the only hope and the only way real change can occur. It is very important to deprive the regime of its ability to portray the opposition as a disparate and irresponsible group that can’t be relied on. The opposition still has the chance to prove the regime wrong and be part of a real political change in Syria.
Omar Al Muqdad is a Syrian activist and investigative journalist now living in Washington, DC
