World powers have a duty to end bloodshed in Syria

Some kind of agreement between world and regional powers would be absolutely crucial to any peaceful solution for Syria. This should have been obvious since the beginning of the conflict. Yes, horrified, sympathetic or indifferent, the world has witnessed the uprising of a people against a ferocious dictatorship. It was above all the insurrection of anger. Yes also, the international community had to deal and still has to deal with a terrible terrorist threat. But, it’s equally true that the conflict in Syria has always been about the concerns of the regional powers, the rise of Iranian influence in the region, the specific interests of Turkey, the apprehensions of Israel, the willingness of Russia to score points with the western world, the hesitations of America and so on.

Strangely enough, that regional and international dimension has been minimised by the United Nations.

The UN mediation has mainly focused on the desperate quest for a dialogue and hopefully some form of understanding between the Damascus regime and a representation of the opposition. In the same time Russians have always played a leading role in shaping the road map of the UN, in a first stage because of their massive use of their blocking power at the UN Security Council (series of vetos), and in a second stage because of their military investment on the ground. The illusion has long prevailed that the Russians were in fact in a position to drive the Syrian-Syrian dialogue towards a solution consistent with a Russian peace.

This illusion was supported by the relatively positives results of the Astana process, with the help of Turkey and Iran, and has culminated in the pathway to Sochi. This illusion is more or less evaporating. One could think it is time to develop an alternative approach, based on the need to work on looking at a possible alignment of the interests of regional and world powers. No doubt that such a proposal seems to be more difficult to implement — some would say more quixotic — than ever. And still more unpracticable than the current UN-Russian approach.

Let’s stress two or three reasons why it is worth considering a regional/ international angle. First, nobody can believe any more that after the seven years of hate and atrocities, death and destruction, a dialogue between the regime and the opposition, without a proper international framework, can lead anywhere. Second, the net result of what has been done until now is the division of the country into various zones of influence. Nobody can pretend that this is a reliable recipe for the return of stability. On the contrary, and this would be my third point, we are now entering a dangerous phase in which regional and world powers are on the brink of direct military confrontation, as one have seen in Afrin, Deir-ez-Zor and last Saturday after the penetration of an Iranian drone in the Israeli skies.

Someone had already suggested that a closer dialogue between world and regional powers would be appropriate. President Macron did. He made the proposal of a contact group around such a new format.

The proposal was not welcome, maybe because it came too late; things were already entrenched and it was impossible for France to change the course of current international processes (Geneva, Astana and so on). Or maybe, it was premature. But, now that Russian and Israeli jets are downed, Turkish helicopters as well, Russian soldiers or mercenaries are killed on the banks of Euphrates and elsewhere, now that an Iranian drone and maybe half of the Syrian air defenses have been destroyed, decisions-makers should realise that it is time to take a deep breath and think again.

A step in the right direction may have been made with the setting up of a small group, led by the United States and comprised of France, UK, and other countries from the region. They met in Paris at the ministerial level on January 23. The aim of this group is not to constitute an alternative source of leadership but to contribute to any international process.

If this turning point is reached, two issues would really matter. First, no mistake should be made on the agenda. The fundamental question now is

Russians have played a leading role in shaping the road map of the UN, because of their use of their blocking power at the UN and military investment on the ground to see how to avoid that the de facto partition of the country spills over into a regional conflict or at least into a permanent risk of escalation. It does not mean that on behalf of stability the Damascus regime stays unchanged forever or that a genuine cease-fire stops being an absolute priority. It means that both the regional aspects and the domestic aspects of the Syrian tragedy have to be tackled together.

Second, a rapprochement between Russia and the US small group should at some point lead to a Dayton type conference.

Dayton, which in 1995 put an end to the wars in ex-Yugoslavia, is not, for all sorts of reasons, a proper model for ending the never-ending war in Syria. But what could be kept from Dayton, in due time of course, that is to say after a careful preparation, is the method: a meeting in which all stakeholders should sit at the same table and stay in the room as long as needed to find an agreement. A peace agreement. A peace agreement for Syria and for the Middle-East. — Asharq Al Awsat

Michel Duclos is the Former French Ambassador to Syria