Compromise is key to Syrian peace
Geneva talks and other such efforts are futile unless all parties yield ground and accept a power-sharing model
The US government tried to solve the Syria crisis by suggesting three negotiations based on a balanced political proposal. But the Damascus-Iran-Russia axis ruined all three conferences. Russia, in turn, initiated two conferences, one in Astana and the other currently being held in Geneva. However, this too doesn’t look promising. The beginnings confirm the end: a repeated failure.
This is despite the fact that Washington has supported the solution and UN Envoy Steffan de Mistura had defended Russia’s stance. Moderate opposition factions were pressured to accept solutions (that aren’t up to their expectations), and others were barred from participating in the talks. Geneva 4 conference hasn’t ended yet, but it seems that it is doomed to fail.
This clearly reveals lack of a clear consensus that can be accepted by all, or one that can be imposed on everyone through international support. Iran and Russia, on their part, have tried to do this by supporting the Syrian regime on the people of Syria. But it’s an utter failure. The solution isn’t acceptable to the millions of displaced, frightened Syrians.
Russian and Iranian proposal is based on keeping the regime in power, which means enforcing its policies of displacement and cancellation of majority of the remaining residents inside Syria.
The idea itself can’t survive even if all factions agreed to it. It is a formula that aims to enable the regime to rule most of Syria by force, like the West Bank under Israeli occupation, except the fact that Israel has a strong powerful system, which allows it to control this anomaly.
Russia has tried to convince a number of opposing factions to join the regime, offering them positions in the government in exchange. Yet to these factions and everyone else, this seems like legalising rape and no one will accept such a solution. The previously proposed political solution was rejected by both the Syrian regime and the opposition. Still, it is the practical solution and reasonable alternative.
The solution suggests a joint regime and it can now be developed by keeping the president but giving the security and finance to the opposition or by changing the president and keeping sovereign posts for the regime but within a framework of cooperation protected by regional and international authorities.
Sharing can be based on a reasonable balance formula that both parties have an interest in maintaining: either the presidency or the presidency’s jurisdictions, but not both. We have a standing model — the Taif Agreement — that ended the Lebanese crisis, which was much more complicated than the Syrian problem. It was based on creating a solution in which all parties made concessions.
War calls sought to cancel the Christians’ right to presidency and its jurisdictions demanding it be equally distributed. The dispute ended by redistributing jurisdictions with the president remaining Christian by losing some of his jurisdictions for other parties.
Hadn’t it been for the Taif Agreement, the war might have continued and the Christians would have lost their shares.
If the Sunnis and Shi’ites had refused to make concessions, the war would have resulted in more foreign interventions that would have prolonged the war and deepened divisions within sects on the Lebanese arena. The current political situation in Lebanon is neither perfect nor great, but at least the country is stable.
Crisis in Syria is less complicated, especially because the civil opposition accepts power sharing and the constitution protects the rights of all minorities. Its system has a good example of that as it involves all Syrians irrelevant of their religious and ethnic differences.
As for the armed opposition, most of its factions are rejected by everyone because it has a religious and internationalist agenda; none of which is acceptable to the Syrian population.
The failure of Astana and Geneva talks will spur fights again even after denying armament for moderate opposition, some of which had to form coalitions with terrorist groups to protect themselves after running out of ammunition.
The repeated failure may lead the uncompromising parties to think reasonably and rationally. Iran must realise that it will not be allowed to take over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Iran achieved its incursion by benefiting from the weakness of the former US administration. Its dominance threatens the rest of the region’s countries and the world.
It is a hazard because Iran uses its agents as a weapon against its rivals, including Europeans and the US. Also, if the unrest continues it would attract more extremists and threaten everyone.
Abdulrahman Al Rashed is the former general manager of Al Arabiya television, and former editor-inchief of Asharq Al Awsat and Al Majalla. He is based in
Dubai. — Al Sharq Al Awsat
Sharing can be based on a reasonable balance formula that both parties have an interest in maintaining: either the presidency or the presidency’s jurisdictions, but not both.