Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, right, speaks with United Nations envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura in Damascus in 2014. (SANA via Associated Press)
By Editorial Board January 27
HAVING ANNOUNCED in November that Syria could be “weeks away” from “a big transition,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry appears determined to force the launch of something resembling peace negotiations this week. To do so, he and United Nations envoy Staffan de Mistura have given up a lot. They are no longer proposing head-to-head discussions between the government of Bashar al-Assad and rebel groups but merely “proximity talks,” in which the U.N. mediator would shuttle between them. Nor has the Assad regime been required to allow full humanitarian access into civilian areas it keeps under siege, though that was part of the negotiations road map endorsed by a Security Council resolution last month.
It remains unclear whether this watered-down process will get off the ground Friday in Geneva. Rebel representatives remain undecided whether to accept Mr. de Mistura’s invitation, in part because of the regime’s failure to respect the terms of the U.N. resolution. Even if the convocation goes forward, the concessions already made to the Assad regime and its backers in Russia and Iran probably will ensure that there is no progress in the foreseeable future.
This is not to suggest that Syrian diplomacy should not be pursued. While the “big transition” Mr. Kerry foresaw is likely a mirage, a simple cease-fire between the regime and the non-jihadist rebels would be a major success. U.N. officials, for their part, are hoping the Geneva talks will lead to a lifting of government sieges.
Yet Damascus and its backers show no sign of interest in a truce with rebel forces. On the contrary, they are pressing ahead with an offensive that has allowed them to recapture several rebel-held towns in both northern and southern Syria. The advances have been supported by heavy Russian bombing of civilian areas — though Security Council Resolution 2254 explicitly demanded that such attacks cease.
Moscow is meanwhile making demands likely intended to slow or sabotage the process. It has tried to exclude some Islamist groups backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, while pressing its own “opposition” delegation composed of figures acceptable to the Assads, including Syrian Kurds.
In his zeal to start the talks, Mr. Kerry has repeatedly accommodated Russia’s demands — such as dropping the requirement that the Assad clique be removed from power — while failing to insist on even those conditions mandated by the Security Council, such as an end to the besiegement and bombing of civilians. Yet those are also the prerequisites for a workable political settlement.
Rather than seeking to start the talks at any price, the United States should be working to create the conditions under which they can succeed. That will require giving the opposition the military support it needs to stop and reverse the Syrian-Russian military offensive. And it should mean insisting that as a starting point, the regime’s starve-or-surrender blockades, and Russia’s bombing of hospitals and food stores, stop once and for all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/watered-down-peace-talks-on-syria-if-they-happen-are-unlikely-to-go-anywhere/2016/01/27/03acfe80-c457-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق