In Syria, Vienna process is too rushed to succeed
Before calling for elections, Syria must be stabilized.
Top diplomats from 17 countries met in Vienna last month and set an overly ambitious 18-month timeline for conflict resolution in Syria. The Vienna peace process expects the opposition to start negotiations with the Bashar al-Assad regime soon. Based on the Vienna ideas, the next Syria meeting will take place in New York later this week. An anticipated cease-fire would lead to the formation of an inclusive government representing all parties. An interim Cabinet would prepare a constitution within a year. Six months later, elections would be called for to determine leadership and parliament. This instant democracy-building maybe doomed from the start.
The Vienna process is essentially a reformulation of the Transition Plan of the Syria Geneva Conference of June 2012. Here again, the future of Assad is ambiguous. Participants in the Vienna process have not been agreed upon. The international actors on the diplomatic scene have always been more important than local leadership. The external powers have their own self-serving agenda: The United States is focused on “war on terrorism”; Saudi Arabia insists on ousting Assad before ISIS is defeated; Iran and Russia’s priorities are to protect the existing regime; Turkey is keen on limiting Kurdish power; and the Europeans wish to stem the tide of refugees.
Vienna could fail the way the Geneva process failed before. What Syria really needs, rather than rushed dialogue and elections, is a 10-year multinational scheme, starting with recapturing lost territories and leading to stabilization. Elections and reconstruction come next.
This long-term plan must reconcile the interests of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two most aggressive regional players in Syria. Tehran supports Assad’s Alawite regime, and Riyadh provides aid to the opposition, Sunni groups. The combined forces of these two central Middle East nations are needed to defeat the Islamic State. Instead, Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a proxy war in Yemen, which is causing untold suffering. And paradoxically, Washington condones and supports a Saudi-led war in Yemen and assumes leadership in peace-making in Syria.
The Vienna process cannot go far until ISIS is defeated; ISIS controls a large section of eastern Syria and western Iraq. To defeat ISIS, a massive ground campaign should support the ongoing multinational air attacks on the caliphate “state.” The peo- ple of Iraq, Syria and the Arab Gulf states must take the lead on the battlefield.
It might take a generation to establish stability in Syria. A multinational peace force would have to protect minorities from majorities, citizens from warlords, civilians from militias and secular communities from jihadis.
State-building must address underlying causes of unrest: poor governance, religious intolerance and widespread unemployment. Constructive partnership with the West could help renew educational and economic systems.
There are no signs that the Washington-led Vienna process will change its impulsive course. Simplistic understanding of complex international issues is reflected in the current U.S. debate on Syria. That debate seems to be obsessed with the magnitude of American troops to be deployed on the ground. Foreign deployment comes at great risk, arousing local anger and dulling self-determination. The recent spike of international terror in Europe and the U.S. distracts America’s attention from problem-solving to demonization.
To revive a stable Syria, a long-term plan beyond the Vienna vision is required.