When Secretary of State John Kerry first took office he talked of changing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's calculus.
Assad "needs to know that
he can't shoot his way out of this," Kerry said in March at a Rome
meeting with members of the Syrian opposition.
When he and Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov first conceived the idea of bringing the
regime and the opposition together for peace talks in Geneva, they
believed strengthened international support for both the political
opposition and rebel forces would leave the Syrian leader ready to
negotiate his own ouster.
U.S. policy since then has had the opposite effect.
Assad's calculus has indeed changed.
The political opposition
is on the verge of collapse, rebel groups now having to battle the
growing strength of Islamist forces on the ground, and his regime is at
the center of implementing an international deal to rid the country of
chemical weapons. He heads to Geneva believing the false narrative that
he is even more powerful.
As his forces continue to
kill thousands each week from barrel bombs with impunity, Assad has no
reason to think he can't shoot his way out of the crisis.
With a week to go until
the talks, the Syrian opposition has yet to put forth a delegation for
Geneva and remains bitterly divided on whether to attend at all.
Members of the opposition
suggest that the United States is setting them up to fail by not
providing the Free Syrian Army with sufficient resources to change the
balance of power on the ground.
"Is the opposition being
set up for success by United States, not just to participate in a
conference that will lead to a political solution, but being empowered
to ensure success of the stated objectives of Geneva?" asked Oubai
Shahbandar, a senior adviser to the opposition.
"It is the position of
the opposition that you cannot have a successful political process if
the U.S. doesn't also increase its support. Right now, the regime thinks
its winning. They think they have successfully avoided military
strikes, western sanctions and repercussions for continued war crimes.
It is these components that make any successful outcomes of Geneva
unlikely," Shahbandar said.
For months, U.S.
Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford has shuttled to Turkey to meet with
members of the Syrian National Council. In preparing for Geneva, Ford
and other U.S. officials repeatedly urged the opposition to present a
transition plan that saw the group playing a major role in a post
al-Assad government, which could include some elements of the current
government. Now the group is being implored to just show up.
The Obama administration
maintains it still believes al-Assad should step down. But rather than
hand over power, he is talking about running for re-election this spring
in what is all but certain to be a fraudulent election. And the
opposition, whose legitimacy is mostly conferred upon them by the
international community, appears to be in no position to force his hand.
"The Syrian opposition
is in a space capsule heading toward Geneva and breaking up in the
atmosphere and this may be one of the West's biggest failures," says
Salman Sheikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center.
"Geneva has put
unbearable pressure on an opposition that has always lacked unity and
direction and this has a great bearing for any process the international
powers are looking to launch," Sheikh said.
Having lacked resolve to
either use force against al-Assad or arm the opposition, and with no
coming together of the Security Council on even the growing humanitarian
crisis, the Obama administration now has fewer tools in the toolbox.
What's left is the
diplomatic "fig leaf" of Geneva, which few people besides Kerry believe
is more than an effort to check the diplomatic box and manage some sort
of response to the Syrian crisis, rather than demonstrating the mettle
to find a solution.
"Despite how everyone
tries to dress it up, this is not the right kind of place for the U.S.
to be on what is shaping up to be the biggest humanitarian disaster of
this century and which is promising to have the largest loss of life and
bloodiest conflict the Middle East has seen," Sheikh said.
"But there is no
alternative. It is all we have, so now have to go through it and hope
for something after Geneva. I think it is a misreading of the situation
and the whole region. I'm not sure they can stand many more months of
this while the ground churns," Sheikh said.
Moreover, there is no
agreement in terms of what the parameters of the Geneva talks are. The
United States, United Nations and other Western and Arab countries want
talks on a transitional government. The Syrian regime, Russia and Iran -
who won't be there as a participant but with thousands of fighters on
the ground helping the regime will be the elephant in the room - believe
Geneva is about fighting the growing Islamic insurgency and
rehabilitating al-Assad.
With al Qaeda forces
continuing to capture territory and even checkpoints on the border with
Turkey, narrative of al-Assad as savior is stronger.
Even as Washington is
turning up the pressure on the opposition to join the talks, the
administration is significantly lowering expectations. U.S. officials
concede merely getting the opposition and the regime in the room would
be a success.
"When we first
conceptualized the conference, we believed that we would be able to help
form a transitional government and that would be that," one senior
State Department official acknowledged. "But we understand achieving
political progress is more challenging eight months later."
The first direct talks
between the two sides after three years of conflict would be a
milestone. To jumpstart negotiations over a political transition, Kerry
said he and Lavrov are seeking confidence-building measures, including
possible local ceasefires, access for delivery of humanitarian aid and
exchange of prisoners. Agreement on these issues would also be no small
feat.
With progress toward a
transitional government highly unlikely, the conference will now focus
as much on the humanitarian crisis as it will on discussions about
Syria's political future.
"The humanitarian
situation has taken on a greater importance. It is an enormous crisis
and it is appropriate to focus on that," another senior U.S. official
said.
"We still have a desire
to see a transitional government and nobody is giving up with that. But
we are also thinking about what our other objectives are," the official
said.
Having accepted the fact
that Geneva is not likely be a turning point for the conflict, the
administration now says it hopes Geneva will be the beginning of a
"process." But there is wide trepidation among the Syrian opposition
about a process that is open-ended and fails to stop the violence and
suffering.
"Nothing will happen
overnight but it can't be indefinite, Shahbandar said. "The regime will
drag this process on while it continues to bomb cities and increase its
starvation campaign."
In addition, any future
effort to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict must focus
more on broadening the participation of that process to include more
Syrians with influence on the ground.
"The biggest failure of
Geneva is that the regime and opposition can't turn the corner. They
can't because they don't represent the majority of Syrians," Sheikh
said.
Revolutionary councils
inside Syria, the backbone of the civil resistance, have been providing
services to the people and are increasingly becoming the de-facto
representation of the Syrian opposition.
But those doing the work
on the ground, whether it be political or fighting, are not involved in
the political process under way.
Sheikh, who meets
frequently with a cross section of Syrians said that with all of its
planning for a post al-Assad Syria, the international community has yet
to help build an indigenous opposition in a meaningful way.
"Alawites, Christians,
tribal leaders, rebel commanders and business associations all need to
be brought in and they aren't," Sheikh said. "If I can do that in a
little old think tank, how come the international community hasn't been
able to support that?"
No comments:
Post a Comment