Debates move away from shaping Syria’s future,
▶ With western fatigue, Russian dominance and a regime victory on the horizon, the civil war is less of a UN priority
Although not openly admitted, Syria has tumbled down the list of focus for the world’s most powerful natio ns in the past 12 months.
With the US and major European countries preoccupied by domestic concerns, there is no faith in gains from a stronger policy to counter President Bashar Al Assad.
The notable exception to non-engagement is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who filled a vacuum and became the leading international figure in determining Syria’s future.
While there is wide agreement that there can be no military solution, the killing continues. Talk of the need for a political settlement is shared but there is no consensus or progress.
The Geneva peace talks – a UN process – have foundered. A rival Astana peace process led by Russia, Iran and Turkey, calculated on their interests, was a spoiler. The survival of the Assad regime, a goal that benefits the interests of Russia and Iran, his strongest regional rival, seems assured.
The one blip in the past 12 months to Mr Al Assad’s upwards trajectory was the US, British and French military strikes on Syrian targets on April 14.
The Pentagon said the raids were to destroy plants that produced chemical weapons, which killed 40 people in the rebel-held town of Douma a week earlier.
Use of chemical weapons is the one subject that generates diplomatic traction on Syria. Yet the war has since proceeded on a linear path. The Assad regime retakes territory and rebels are dispersed.
The halting of an offensive in Idlib at the behest of Turkey is likely to be postponement rather than abandonment of the military action wanted by the Syrian regime and its allies in Moscow and Tehran to bring about the war’s ultimate end.
US President Donald Trump, in an echo of his America First strategy, wants his troops out of Syria, where their role is premised on the elimination of ISIS.
This has emboldened Mr Putin and Mr Al Assad and led to an irreversible path towards the latter’s victory over rebels.
Little has changed in the overall nature of the conflict since the General Assembly last met, except perhaps the pace. Steady fighting has been replaced by more sporadic conflict.
Agreements have led to rebels surrendering territory in exchange for safe passage out of battle zones.
Western and regional states remain concerned by the human displacement but that is outweighed by an acceptance that those difficulties will be worsened by more war. Memories of Syrian refugees lined up in 2015 and 2016 desperate to reach Europe are never far away.
As such, this year’s meeting in New York – the eighth opening of the General Assembly since the Syrian conflict began – may result in matters being addressed in less combative terms.
“Maybe this is the first year that they can come to the UN bold enough to say they have weathered the storm,” said Ayham Kamel, head of the Mena region at the Eurasia group consultancy, of the Assad regime.
“Syria has moved away from a US-centred debate and I don’t think they will push a lot, although there is still time for them to blame external powers.”
Mr Kamel was alluding to US and possibly French attention on Syria at the assembly.
Syria will be represented at the General Assembly on September 29 by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Walid Muallem.
At last year’s meeting, Mr Muallem was predictable in his criticism of western powers, chastising those he deemed guilty of “violating international and humanitarian laws”, while saying that Syria was committed to security, stability and reconciliation.
Since then, tens of thousands more have been killed but it is another sign that the war has swung in Mr Al Assad’s favour that talk has moved away from those deaths, and any dwindling prospect of military confrontation, to Syria’s post-war reconstruction.
Russia and Iran stand to gain the most from the rebuilding process – a quid pro quo for their long-standing support of Mr Al Assad.
Mr Putin raised the subject of EU financing for construction in his recent meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose domestic political fortunes have slid since she accepted Syrian refugees, such is the power of anti-immigrant sentiment and populism in Europe.
The changing role of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President long opposed to Mr Al Assad, also signals a political shift.
Mr Erdogan opened his border with Syria years ago to allow extremists to flood in and take the battle to Mr Al Assad’s forces, yet he is now the third rail of the power system that has replaced the West as brokers of Syria’s future.
Despite the political overtures towards acceptance of an Assad victory, peace seems more fragile. The regime has waged war against its own people and more than half a million have been killed. Reconciliation cannot be considered a given.
In June, 3,000 Syrians in Lebanon – a fraction of the one million exiled there – were due to be repatriated.
Regime officials accepted only 400, half of whom refused to return.
Numbers dwindled because families refused to be broken up after officials pulled fighting-age men out of the group.
Russia said it could assist Lebanon in repatriation but chances of success look poor.
While the apparent wish of the US and Europe is that Syria will go away, the chances are that with Mr Al Assad now classed as the least bad option, the problem will simply evolve.