Geneva talks on Syria produce no effective results

The nine-hour talks held in Geneva on Saturday with the intention of tackling the Syrian crisis produced “significant” decisions that are unlikely to be “effective.”

These decisions are significant in that Russia and China, who have so far not refrained from backing the Assad regime, have, for the first time, signaled a change in their position by supporting a plan to establish a “transitional government” in Damascus. They are unlikely to be effective because Russia and China have stipulated that Bashar al-Assad must head this transitional government, a move that would effectively render this plan dysfunctional. Moreover, neither the opposition groups nor Assad give any indication that they are warm to this plan for their own reasons.

Opposition groups had previously noted that they would not accept any transitional government in which Assad continues to preserve his power. And Assad has said: “We will not accept any plan for the settlement of the crisis if it is not drafted by the Syrians but by big states or friendly states. No one knows how to solve Syria’s problems better than us.” So he, too, had made it clear that the outcome of the Geneva meeting would not bind them.

Moreover, on the day the debates for a transitional government were being held in Geneva, the Assad regime launched air-backed attacks using heavy weapons against the regime’s dissidents, killing 125 people. The Assad regime’s merciless slaughter of 125 people on such an important day was clear proof that it did not attach the slightest importance to the Geneva meeting.

Despite the blood spilled, the final communiqué of the Geneva meeting asserted that “the transitional government should be formed on the basis of mutual consent” and this is a clear indication of the meeting’s failure to take into consideration the positions of the conflicting sides. The potential success of this deal in the field relies on the likelihood of a “mutual consent” being formed between the Assad regime and the dissidents, and for the time being, it is impossible to consider such a thing a possibility.

Although China and Russia altered their position with regard to the Syrian crisis only “slightly,” no one can talk about a concrete change with regards to the practical situation and developments. This is because China and Russia have been maintaining a position that is impossible to reconcile with that of the US and its allies, about Syria in general and the fate of Assad in particular. This gap was visible also in the statements made during the summit meeting. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “Assad must go” while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that Assad does not have to leave office. The meeting’s final communiqué is proof that Lavrov emerged victorious from this critical debate.

Nevertheless, by assuming a positive view on these developments, with a cautious optimism, we may agree with Clinton, who said the plan “paves the way for the post-Assad government.” The role of Russia, which continues to strike arms sales with Syria to be delivered in and after 2012, and of Iran, which provides Assad with all sorts of support, including sending troops to this country, makes it hard for us to be optimistic at all. Let us maintain our optimism just like Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who said: “This is a beginning, not an end. This should be seen as a new step or perspective towards a solution, not as a final solution,” hoping that he proves to be right in his optimism.

At the end of the day, the Geneva meeting not only failed to produce an international agreement for removing Assad from office but was also unsuccessful in making Russia stop providing the Assad regime with arms. In light of these developments, the plan to make the UN Security Council, the organ that is principally responsible for dealing with the Syrian crisis, make a move and take a more serious and concrete decision remains a pure fancy. The Geneva meeting’s outcome seems to be a consensus that will not be implemented as it is not acceptable to Assad or his dissidents. Given the hardly constructive attitude of Russia, China and Iran, the best position we can adopt, I think, is to not clutch at straws. <Cihan/Today’s Zaman>

news@theasian.asia