Syrians must be part of the talks
Diplomatic deliberations in Vienna or Geneva can’t end the civil war: A solution will come only from negotiations between fighters on the ground
Perhaps the only thing uniting strands of opinion over Syria is the knowledge that bombing the “rulers” of Raqqa alone will not end the crisis. The key lies in talks that could end the civil war. But so far, the diplomacy has flatlined. The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, announced on Tuesday that governments involved in the Syrian peace process will meet in New York this week, but the fate of the negotiations will depend on what happens in the efforts to unite Syrian opposition groups in the coming days; who sits around the table will be crucial.
Much hope rested on the Vienna talks, organised by 17 countries in the International Syria Support Group plus the United Nations, European Union and the Arab League. From there came a call for joint action and an unrealistic January 1 deadline for the start of negotiations between Bashar Al Assad’s government and Syrian opposition groups. Under that plan, elections should take place in 18 months’ time. But all of it has an air of self-delusion given what is happening on the ground in bombed-out, wasted cities such as Idlib and Aleppo, as well as Homs, where there is now an uneasy truce.
These are places that the UN and the EU do not visit, so they do not comprehend the huge gap between what happens in a conference room at the UN secretariat and the reality in Anadan, Al Bab or Al Zahraa — neighbourhoods of Aleppo. The people who live, die and fight in these places, after all, are the ones who will determine the real political future of Syria — not the proxy countries tearing it to pieces. The diplomats in Vienna have never stood in the bread lines in Aleppo, or never lived under the barrel bombs, pulling relatives’ broken bodies from the rubble. So while there was much back-slapping, they remain jammed on the same old points.
Syrians were excluded from the table in Vienna “to prevent friction”; nor was the most vital issue — whether Al Assad goes — addressed. It was almost as if, as one analyst put it, guys in suits were telling fighters on the ground what to do and expecting them to obey. “Vienna is no panacea, but it is the first light we see on the horizon to political transition,” says Hrair Balian from the Carter Center. There’s some light too, perhaps, from Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia hosted the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) conference aimed at unifying Syrian rebels. Yet, what really matters is not what takes place in Vienna or Geneva or even Riyadh, but what happens on the ground.
Talks between opposition forces and the Syrian army in Eastern Gouta — a rebel stronghold near Damascus that is regularly bombed by government forces — have been stalling and starting, but if they succeed they could seal a 15-day truce there. Truces or ceasefires don’t always work. Indeed, they are often used by militias to gain more ground before the final bell rings. But talks of this kind at significant, grass-roots level are most likely to make a difference.
Think back to Richard Holbrooke’s Dayton initiative for Bosnia. Those relied on “proximity talks”: It was the warring parties, not just diplomats, who were penned in a remote and dusty air force base in Ohio. The enemies were forced to see each other at breakfast, lunch and dinner until they finally agreed to end the bloodshed.
Disparate rebel forces
Uniting the opposition is crucial. That may involve difficult choices. People such as Robert S. Ford, the former United States ambassador to Syria, advocate talking to Islamist groups, including Ahrar Al Sham, and engaging them in the fight against Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The West has seen Ahrar Al Sham as untouchable, but is that approach sustainable? Jabhat Al Nusra and Daesh will never be included in the future plan for Syria. But Ahrar Al Sham has demonstrated it can unite disparate rebel forces.
The people in these high-level talks are not necessarily those who know best. Researchers Charles Lister and Salman Shaikh, formerly of the Brookings Institution, conducted more than 100 interviews with armed opposition leaders to try to understand what they are thinking and what they want — and how the war might end. The Carter Center has also done extensive fieldwork. They are digging deep to find out what the Syrian people actually want. This must be the priority.
One sticking point, though, is the Kurds, excluded from the Saudi meetings just ended to determine which Syrian opposition figures attend the negotiations. This is a mistake. If there is to be a unified non-Daesh opposition, it’s vital that they not be further excluded, including from the Vienna talks. It seems inevitable that Syria’s future will be mapped out by others. Even then, the great powers will do well to show a degree of humility and restraint, for, as negotiations take shape, the priority must be to put Syrians at the forefront. The prize might be a solution that will last.
Janine di Giovanni is the Middle East editor of Newsweek and an international security fellow at the New America Foundation. Her book on Syria, The Morning They Came For Us, will be published in January 2016 by Bloomsbury.
On the web