Peace talks or surrender conditions?
It is doubtful if Trump will back up promises to create safe zones in Syria which would give a clear message to Iran, Syria and Russia
Two key events are straddling the Middle East and neither bodes well for the people of this region. The socalled Syria peace talks, initiated by Russia and held in Astana, have not produced the results that many had hoped for, given that there were a number of dynamics in place which were bereft from previous talks which had collaped. And Trump’s policies towards Europe and the EU becoming clearer by the day.
But even with the presence of key players like Turkey and Iran — and the US not being invited — little could be done in the end to break a deadlock of minds. The rebels, despite being in a much weaker position to negotiate than in 2014, still clung on to the deal-breaker of ‘Assad must go’; and unlike before, Assad’s negotiators held out even longer. Many pundits are blaming Iran for adding their own ingrediants to the mix but the truth is that it is hard for a regime which is in such a dominant position to really consider negotiating anything. The problem is in the spin and the PR fandango which creates these conferences in the first place. It’s all in the wording. Change ‘Peace talks’ to ‘Surrender conditions’ and we might get somewhere.
Opposition fighters have lost so much in the past 12 months that it is hardly apparent for the Syrian regime what it is left they have as leverage. But the people of Turkey and Lebanon know only too well: insurgency in the form of car bombs — in the case of Lebanon, almost certainly directed at the huge Shia community here which provides what some estimate to be 50,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria.
Syrian opposition groups have pleaded with Donald Trump to intervene and were hoping to grasp at one last straw. Yet analysts are already doubting that Trump will back up his promises to create safe zones in Syria which would at least give a clear message to Iran, Syria and Russia that Trump aims to act as a real super power once again in the Middle East. Super powers usually don’t ask permission from despots to fly over their country and chuck bags of rice out of the back of a Hercules plane; or indeed to make safe areas for humanitarian purposes.
But will he do it? Who can guess what such a charachter will do next, when in truth he
Opposition fighters have lost so much in the past 12 months that it is hardly apparent for the Syrian regime what it is left they have as leverage
doesn’t really know himself on a week-to-week basis. And can we rely on western media to report it accuratly anyway? American media in particular are leading a charge on a new story which claims that Iran is moving in hoardes of poor Iranians into areas in Syria in a bid to swell the numbers of people on the ground who are loyal to Assad. This tactic is as old as the hills. When I was in the former Yugoslavia in 1997, I saw the same thing being carried out right under the noses of the UN and Nato by Milosovic who sent a convoy of Serbian peasants to move into Slavonia, a northern provice of Croatia, while all the West could do was build a refugee camp in Osijek housing 69,000 Croats who lost their homes. Rape is a tactic of war which crushes people; losing your home to your enemy’s own people is a close second; similarly, in Northern Cyprus, the same thing happened when Turkey sent peasants to live in the houses of Greek Cypriots who fled the north after the invasion.
No one helped any of those people get their homes back.
Although I am not sure about the validity of this news, of Iranians moving into areas of Syria, if it is true, then the rebels should accept defeat and negotiate now the best deal they can get with the West in terms of restructuring and humanitarian assistance — for no other reason that it will be the EU and the EU who will draw up maps of areas, which will then be recognised as legitimate villages and towns with distinctive Sunni populations. If they lose this opportunity, they risk being victims of this latest fad of ethnic cleansing which might even have them evicted from the crumbling remains of what is still a home.
In Europe Trump’s new rationale not only looks to divide European countries but will almost certainly destabilise the EU. This has several ramifications: strengthening Britain which will make it a beacon for other EU countries who are thinking of making the leap towards their own Brexit. But also giving even more momentum towards an idea that most cannot even face: giving Germany an even stronger role to play as a leader which would finally be required to have the guts to garner its own foreign policy, an idea today that leaves most Germans pale at the gills. Berlin has already said internally that it is ready to have its own army which would be a new peacekeeping coaltion made up of other EU countries armies, which naturally it would lead. There is very little politically stopping this from happenning. The question is one of politics. Would it be a new EU army by default with Germany leading it? Or would it be a Brussels-initiated EU army, which democratically elects Germany to allow it to be top heavy with its generals? Either way, with the trembles getting larger each day in Brussels, such an army might find its first mission will be to protect enclaves in Syria and to help the distribution of sacks of rice and valuable medicine. Not such a bitter pill, some might argue. Martin Jay recently won the
UN’s prestigious Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize )(UNCA) in New York, for his journalism
work in the Middle East. He is based in Beirut. Follow him at @
MartinRJay