SyriaCould an end to Syria’s civil war be in sight?
None of the previous attempts to resolve the conflict among the warring parties in Syria through negotiations, such as the Geneva II talks in the beginning of 2014, has had a happy ending. And, in retrospect most observers would go so far as to say that they were doomed to failure. But if, until now, there was zero chance for all principals, both external and internal, to work out a settlement, there currently exists a slender — a very slender — chance for success. A word of caution: Just because most of the parameters are in place does not mean an agreement will be reached. The “Clinton Parameters” — so-called because they were put forward in a last-ditch attempt at a solution by Bill Clinton in 2000, the last year of his presidency — are widely acknowledged to be the basis for any Israeli-Palestinian peace. They have been on the table for a decade and a half, and a resolution to that conflict is nowhere in sight.
Front of house in Azaz, Syria // Source: commons.wikimedia.org
If, as cliché has it, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, isn’t the recent flurry of diplomatic activity aimed at bringing about a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war insane? None of the previous attempts to resolve the conflict among the warring parties through negotiations, such as the Geneva II talks in the beginning of 2014, has had a happy ending. And, in retrospect most observers would go so far as to say that they were doomed to failure.
But if, until now, there was zero chance for all principals, both external and internal, to work out a settlement, there currently exists a slender — a very slender — chance for success.
This is the straw at which Secretary of State John Kerry is grasping on the eve of talks in New York.
The first four years
The fighting in Syria has gone on now for over four years.
Both the government and various opposition groups have a powerful attachment to the turf over which they hold sway (one wag has called opposition-held Syria “Mad Max meets the Sopranos”). The government regularly refers to the opposition as “terrorists” while, for their part, members of the opposition have refused to engage with those with “blood-stained hands.”
The government of Bashar al-Assad, bolstered by foreign — Russian and Iranian — support, has lacked incentive for compromise. The divided opposition has had no common goal other than to remove Assad from power.
Likewise, the erstwhile foreign supporters of that opposition — the West, Saudi Arabia, Turkey — have never agreed on strategy or made clear their shared vision of what a post-Assad Syria should look like.
Finally, powerful elements fighting the Syrian government — the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, and now the Islamic State — brook no compromise with a government the latter group identifies as “apostate.”
So why is there hope for a breakthrough now?
How times have changed
Since the Geneva II talks last February, three events have transpired that have fundamentally shifted the environment in which negotiations will take place.
First, there was the nuclear deal in July worked out between Iran and the P5+1 countries of which the United States was a member.
The Iran deal broke the diplomatic ice between Iran and the United States and made it feasible for both to sit at the same negotiating table.
