Geneva 2: In Search of Negotiating Space

Interview

The world's eyes are riveted on the ups and downs of the Geneva 2 process, which is aimed at finding ways to achieve peace in Syria. We met with Andrey Vdovin, former Russian Foreign Ministry Envoy for Middle East Settlement, to discuss the key issues and their historical context.

Interview

The world's eyes are riveted on the ups and downs of the Geneva 2 process, which is aimed at finding ways to achieve peace in Syria. We met with Andrey Vdovin, former Russian Foreign Ministry Envoy for Middle East Settlement, to discuss the key issues and their historical context.

Geneva 2 is intended to bring the government and opposition forces to the negotiating table and put an end to the Syrian civil war. Do you see a practical space for talks, as well as grounds for points of contact between the sides?

Round one of the inter-Syrian dialogue under the Geneva 2 initiative turned out to be more successful than had initially been expected. Unsurprisingly, the sides could not but use the Montreux forum opening session to re-state their extreme attitudes and views on the situation, but during the working meetings in Geneva the dialogue became more constructive, covering the humanitarian issues, i.e. prisoner exchange, passage for food aid convoys, etc. The main achievement seems to be in the fact that, for the first time during the three-year-long crisis, the opposing sides have not just gathered at the negotiating table, but turned their minds to practical issues relatively rapidly.

The Middle East is not exactly a place that inspires optimism, all the more so on such a difficult issue as the Syria crisis. However, several months ago the very possibility of Geneva 2 seemed remote. Fortunately, the worst-case scenario has not materialized, as Russia's initiative on elimination of Syrian chemical weapons prevented the direct military interference of the Unites States and other Western countries. At the same time, there is too much inertia for a speedy reconciliation. America has faced significant resistance in trying to encourage its Syrian and regional allies to take part in this initiative. Sometimes it seemed like the tail was wagging the dog. In this respect, Moscow's task was simpler, as Damascus was all for the conference – despite its previously rather radical rhetoric.

Photo: Andrey Vdovin

In Geneva, it became clear from the very beginning that the search for mutually acceptable compromises between the two main sides in the Syrian conflict will be both lengthy and arduous. Fresh outbursts of radicalism appear likely, including those instigated by external actors. At the same time, even the initial contact between the sides has proven that there is a very real, if modest, space for negotiations on humanitarian issues, which could open up to reveal wider opportunities for rapprochement. Such a scenario is surfacing more visibly now because of the rising radical Islamist trends within the opposition, as the extremists are stepping up the fight against their moderate allies who have no desire to see the conflict transformed into a struggle for an Islamic Caliphate. Our Western partners are also softening, as they attempt to disassociate themselves from radical groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra.

The history of the Middle East peace process has often seen agreements singularly fail to improve the situation on the ground and fail to deliver a solution. Is the Syria situation different from these long-running peace efforts in the region? Does it seem realistic to both reach an accord and have it implemented?

Western states and their Arab associates will definitely go on trying to interpret the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2012 as a carte blanche for the ouster of President Bashar Assad. And the ongoing talks only prove that this is, indeed, happening. But this approach definitely fails to factor in the current Syrian environment. The regime still has overall control on the domestic scene, and the Sunni majority has not risen against the Alawite minority, as had been expected by the West and its allies. At the same time, the Islamist opposition has clearly radicalized. Against this backdrop, removing Mr. Assad from the scene would definitely bring about the massive further destabilization of Syria and possibly neighboring countries, bearing in mind the Sunni uprisings in Iraqi areas adjacent to Syria.

The Kurdish factor is by no means less important for the region. Following in the footsteps of Kurds in Iraq, Kurds in Syria, who control the country's northeast, have also proclaimed autonomy. The collapse of Mr. Assad's regime would spell disaster for other ethnic and confessional minorities in the Syrian geopolitical space, not least for the Christian population, primarily Orthodox Christians, who are already terrorized by Islamist combatants.

Currently, any major further destabilization in Syria is fraught with the inherent risk of its complete disintegration and full-scale war, as happened in Lebanon, which could last decades. Notably, Syria is a comparatively young state in its current borders, although the country obviously has a history stretching back several thousand years. Before World War One, the territory and its population, mostly Arabs, was part of the Ottoman Empire. As agreed within the victorious Entente, Syria became French-mandated territory and split into several semi-autonomous ethnic and confessional entities. In 1938, Paris agreed to transfer to Ankara the Alexandretta Sanjak, a strategic territory in Syria's northwest populated both by Arabs and Turks. In 1958, swept along on a tide of Arab nationalism, the Syrian elite implemented the idea of a united Arab state, which would see Syria, independent since 1946, attached to Egypt. The experiment was a failure, as the United Arab Republic headed by Gamal Abdel Nasser lasted just four years, as the Syrians found themselves the weaker partner, and resented the Egyptians’ dominance.

Photo: REUTERS/Gary Cameron
Geneva II: Place to Establish Official Contacts.
Interview with Dmitri Trenin

The fragility of the existing territorial and political disengagement in the Arab world is only corroborated by the fact that Damascus (like Baghdad before U.S. intervention) is still held by the Baath party officially striving for the establishment of a unified Arab state and consequently for the elimination of all current borders between Arab countries.

Russia made a significant contribution to alleviating the Syrian conflict in fall 2013 by effectively preventing the military intervention of external forces. Do you believe that Moscow can build up its clout in the Middle East? What areas would be most beneficial, as far as Moscow’s interests are concerned?

The contact points between the Syrian sides remain indistinct, especially since external involvement is a reality of the situation. To this end, the Russian diplomatic project aims to bring together the Syrian regime and secular patriotic opposition against terrorism – their common enemy. Hence, Moscow proposes to expand the Geneva presence of domestic opposition hostile to extremist and terrorist groups.

It seems of critical importance to ensure the process is as representative as possible, and to incorporate the Kurds – which could also be radicalized if they feel their position is not being recognized. Of course, inclusion of the Shiite Iran remains a disputed issue. Its absence is keenly felt against a backdrop of such influential Sunni states as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others. Russia's idea of using Geneva 2 to develop a consensus vision for a future Syria based on fundamental principles of international law also seems promising. Remember that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned sovereignty and territorial integrity but accentuated respect for minority rights and their equal status in Syrian society.

In this context, we find ourselves facing a new problem: the accelerating exodus of Middle Eastern Christians, primarily Orthodox Christians, mentioned by the Russian representatives, and the Sunni-Shiite divide. Religion in all its forms is becoming a key issue for the Russian Foreign Ministry, which regards it as a return to the centuries-old tradition of Russian spiritual influence in the region.

Predicting the outcomes of Geneva 2 is a thankless task. But one thing is clear – Russia's diplomacy has done a fine job, employing its all assets and engaging the United States, other Western counties and regional actors to open a window of opportunity in the Syria peace process. And the initiative seems likely to gain momentum, provided the window is not slammed shut in the near future, which is something a number of players would like to see happen.