MESOP ANALYSIS (II) : DAY DREAMING – Political settlement in Syria has become a routine excuse

Now Media Beirut – 10 Sept 2015 – It’s becoming a habit to witness the wave of exciting reports whenever a new initiative for a political solution in Syria emerges. As the conflict has entered its fifth year, it’s normal to follow up on any new initiative but such reports should be assessed based on the reality on the ground, both in and out of Syria, rather than on the wishful thinking of organizers. Such waves of reporting usually fade quickly after a couple of months and then another initiative arises. These false hopes are usually used as an excuse to avoid talking about what should be done in the absence of a genuine political solution in Syria.

Day dreaming

The latest wave of reporting came a few weeks ago when a flurry of diplomatic activities concerining Syria took place over a few days. It’s true that those efforts were significant: Syrian intelligence chief Ali Mamlouk’s visit to Saudi Arabia; Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem’s visit to Oman; Iran’s revised proposal for a political solution; the Iranian foreign minister’s planned visit to Lebanon and to Turkey; and the Saudi foreign minister’s visit to Moscow. However, these diplomatic activties didn’t indicate any breakthrough in the near furutre — the stances of the main actors, regionally and internationaly, remain the same, which is exactly what each group stressed after each of these moves.The predictions of the impact of such initiatives were not based on the clear messages sent by the various players; they were based on wishful thinking. Maybe part of that can be linked to the fact that those efforts followed Iran’s nuclear deal, which gave a positive impression to those who believe that Iran’s policy in the region would change after signing the nuclear deal. Nonetheless, even this expectation is not based on indications or gestures by Iranian officials but rather on hopes that things will be different, though facts indicate otherwise.

Do no harm

While pursuing a political solution in Syria should by all means remain a priority, supporting any initiative without assessing its added value could do more harm than good. Last month, the fight in Syria increased dramatically. The Assad regime intensified its attacks on Zabadani, a city near the Lebanese border, and its airstrikes on Douma and Ghouta, in rural Damascus, which resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties. The rebels retaliated by increasing their attack on pro-Assad areas, mainly in Idlib. This escalation could be understood in light of the conflict’s internal dynamics, but its timing makes linking it to the misleading wishful thinking of the latest diplomatic activities more convincing. It might be expected that the fighting would intensify whenever preparations for negotiations start, but usually it is a price people pay to achieve peace, even temporarily. What has been happening in Syria, though, is that people pay the bloody price as a result of useless initiatives or meaningless political gestures without achieving anything in return. The consequences of such actions are not limited to the increasing death toll and destroying people’s hopes by the repeated failures — they’re giving the main actors excuses, particularly in the absence of a genuine will, not to look for other ideas.

A starting point

Removing Assad’s insurance policy — which mainly holds because there are no alternatives to replace him — would be a good start. The question about what should be done in Syria usually follows a pessimistic take on the possibilities of reaching an end to the conflict in the foreseeable future. Answers normally vary from not knowing to broad ideas that are as complicated as the desired solution. What is missing from most of the answers is how to break down the overall goal into intelligent singular goals. One specific recommendation from this perspective is to focus on creating alternatives to Assad’s regime on various levels. Most of the actors involved in Syria’s conflict are still focusing mainly on military operations — not so much to achieve military victory but to use them as leverage for a better political deal. If the same actors tried just as hard to find alternatives to Assad’s regime, things would be different.

A political settlement following an armed conflict is usually reached mutually when all parties are forced to do so and believe that it’s the best option available or when one group is facing a profound threat. Neither of these applies to Assad’s regime as he knows that the international community, led by the US, won’t allow the rebels to overthrow him before securing an alternative. s such, the regime has established itself as the only provider of essential services in Syria and used all means, including barrel bombs and chemical attacks, to terrorize people and prevent the emergence of effective opposition institutions. Solving the Syrian crisis requires changing this equation, which would stop Assad from using his enemies as a guarantor to stay in power.

Haid Haid is a Syrian researcher based in Istanbul. He tweets @HaidHaid22 https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/565846-political-settlement-in-syria-has-become-a-routine-excuse