LONDON – Last year’s Vienna conferences on Syria were notable for the complete exclusion of Syrian participants. The latest Geneva talks, originally scheduled to begin on January 25 but delayed until today, are notable, not because they will be included this time, but because non-Syrians are dictating which Syrians are allowed to take part in discussions on the future of their own country.
It is yet another indication of the extent to which foreign powers have hijacked the Syrian conflict and attempts to resolve it, and foreign powers in any conflict act primarily in their own self-interest.
This is evident in the political jostling over Syrian participants. For example, Russia insists on the exclusion of certain powerful armed groups, and the inclusion of “opposition” figures that Syrian opposition groups see as closer to the regime. Meanwhile, Turkey insists on the exclusion of Syrian Kurds with whom it is at odds.
The talks are likely to begin without resolving these disagreements, and those parties that are absent, whether by exclusion or boycott, will have little if any incentive to play ball, even if some miraculous progress is made. Achieving a cease-fire is supposed to be a priority in Geneva, but how can one be maintained, let alone agreed to, when some of the most formidable ground forces will be excluded?
It can be argued that this is no longer a Syrian war with foreign involvement, but an international and regional one with Syrian involvement. The extent to which Syrians themselves have become secondary players is evident in Moscow’s statement last week that the talks would go ahead, even if the opposition delegation boycotts them.
A decision to stay away was made yesterday, unless the Syrian regime stops its airstrikes and sieges, which it will not. Despite this, as of noon on the day the talks are due to start, there is no indication of a postponement or cancellation.
In other words, Syrian participation is not a prerequisite, as was the case in Vienna. After all, the U.N. sent out invitations to Geneva to Syrian delegates just three days before the start of the conference. U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura has congratulated the presence of women and civilians, but this merely serves to widen the scope of this charade of a “peace process,” rather than give it any real substance.
As has been the case all along, this latest Geneva conference will ignore the elephant in the room, as there is no discussion planned on the future of the central figure in the conflict: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
He and other senior officials “are the architects of a brutal strategy of indiscriminate attacks in populated areas held by the armed opposition, as well as sieges imposed on civilian populations and the mass torture and execution of prisoners,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote last week. “There is broad agreement that the Syrian government has been responsible for a significant majority” of civilian fatalities.
But then these talks are not about Syria as much as they are about the dynamics of the foreign powers involved in the conflict. Syrian opposition groups are complaining that the U.S. is steering a course closer to that of Assad’s key allies, Russia and Iran.
This may come from an American desire to improve deteriorating ties with a resurgent Moscow, which is challenging U.S. influence in the Middle East, and to encourage a potentially hugely lucrative rapprochement with Iran, which sanctions relief from the nuclear deal has made possible.
The agreement is a centerpiece of a U.S. Administration that has placed far more emphasis on it than on support for Syrian opposition groups, which has never been more than lukewarm. Put simply, beyond the fight against the Islamic State, the Syrian conflict is not a priority for Washington.
This is exacerbating divisions over Syria between the U.S. and other Western countries on the one hand, and regional backers of Syrian opposition groups on the other, primarily Turkey and the Gulf states, whose growing rivalry with Iran is being played out, not just on Syrian soil, but at the negotiating table.
This will contribute to certain failure in Geneva, but foreign powers will still pat themselves on the back for maintaining the illusion that they are doing something tangible to end the conflict.
Meanwhile, ground combat will continue and intensify, as it typically does prior to and during such talks. In the runup to Geneva, major operations by regime and allied ground forces, backed by Russian air power, have been ongoing. As always, lip service will be paid to the need for diplomacy, while resources are poured into the battlefield.
De Mistura insists that “this is not Geneva 3,” but if offers nothing new from the previous failed conferences. Redundant formulas are rehashed, with absurd expectations that the outcome will somehow be different.
The talks are due to last six months, but are likely to collapse or fizzle out well before then, if they even get off the ground. However, this will not deter the holding of future conferences along similar lines, because it is about being seen to be doing something regardless of its efficacy. In other words, optics and PR over substance. Syrians are experiencing what Palestinians have endured for decades: all process, no peace. That is no accident.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Syria Deeply.