On 5 November, officials from Russia and the United States are expected to meet in Geneva to review preparations for holding the Geneva II conference on Syria. Lakdhar Brahimi, the United Nations/Arab League envoy to Syria will join the meeting in the wake of a regional tour of the Middle East that took him to Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Iran and Syria where he discussed the prospects for holding the conference as well as the positions of various Arab and regional powers on the matter. While in Turkey, Brahimi met representatives of the foreign-based Syrian opposition, namely the Coalition of the Forces of Revolution and the Opposition. The Geneva II conference is meant to bring to the negotiating table representatives of both the Syrian government and various opposition groups from within and without Syria, even though the Coalition wants to monopolise — unjustifiably — representation of the Syrian opposition. The stated objective of the conference is to agree on the implementation of the decision adopted 30 June 2012 in Geneva, concerning a political settlement of the crisis in Syria. These measures include an immediate ceasefire, the formation of an all-inclusive government with full executive powers in the military, security and political fields. Also included is the release of all political detainees and the opening of “human corridors” to expedite the delivery of humanitarian and medical aid and assistance to all zones affected by combat operations that have wrought havoc and destruction in Syria for the last two years. The measures called for include guaranteeing free access for international media. More than a year has passed since Geneva I and so far the international community has not acted on its promise, and thus failed in helping the Syrian people turn the page of an internal crisis that metamorphosed into a civil and sectarian war that has destabilised the Middle East. As Brahimi said in Cairo during his latest tour, no international crisis has seen a third of the entire population displaced, as has happened in the Syrian crisis. According to UN figures, almost six million people have been obliged to flee their homes in Syria. Just this week, the World Health Organisation warned of an explosion of polio among Syrian children in the eastern part of Syria. One of the most alarming developments during this year has been the mushrooming of terrorist groups on Syrian territory, the most notorious of which are Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The number of fighting groups in Syria approximate 1,200 in total, with fighters and terrorists swarming from almost the four corners of the earth to fight in Syria. From a strictly military point of view, Syria has become not only a vast training camp for future 11 September-style attacks in Europe and the Middle East, but also a staging ground for terrorist operations wherever it will be easy to stage such operations. Closer to home, the failed assassination attempt against the Egyptian interior minister in Nasr City, Cairo, in September was carried out by terrorists some of whom had fought in Afghanistan and — lately — Syria. In this context, the question must be answered as to the priorities of some Middle Eastern powers that are behind the near unlimited support provided to Syrian insurgents. The question is: What comes first, to fight terrorism or to overthrow the Syrian regime? I do not think that the two could ever go together. It is an either/or. Admittedly, the dynamics on the ground shifted in favour of the Syrian regime in the course of last year. Whereas one year ago the near consensus had been that the days of the Syrian regime were numbered, today the consensus has become that the insurgents are incapable of overthrowing the regime by military means. Put differently, the cost of holding to the mirage of bringing down the government in Syria by force has outweighed the benefits of getting rid of President Bashar Al-Assad. The Syrian crisis has crossed the threshold that most powers involved can bear in terms of the security and stability of the Middle East. Let alone the disastrous consequences for leading regional and European powers in light of the growing power of destruction of terrorist groups. European officials have been speculating that almost 600 Europeans, mostly of Muslim faith, have gone to Syria. This week, German security sources expressed fears that 200 Germans are fighting in Syria and they could return and carry out terrorist attacks within Germany. And lately Turkey has become concerned by the presence of 500 young Turkish men fighting in the ranks of the terrorists against the Syrian government. The adoption of Security Council Resolution 2118 in September on the destruction of Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons has marked a turning point in the Syrian crisis. The unanimous adoption of this resolution reflects not only the will of the council to deal effectively — and in one voice — with Syria, but also the emergence of a Russian-American consensus on the need to settle the Syrian crisis by peaceful means. This settlement would necessarily guarantee the interests of the major powers on the one hand, and the transition to democracy and the rule of law in Syria, on the other. Achieving this twin goal will not be easy, but it should not be impossible with pressure from Moscow and Washington on the various protagonists. One major hurdle will be to reconcile Turkish and Saudi diplomacy in Syria with the consensus of Moscow and Washington. In this framework, a crucial element will be the future of President Al-Assad. What role will he be allowed to play in a “democratic” Syria? In an interview with a Lebanese TV station early this week that coincided on purpose with the London meeting of the “Friends of Syria” group on Tuesday, 22 October, Al-Assad made it clear that he could run for re-election in the presidential elections next year. We should underline the “could”, for it means that he has not made up his mind yet. Maybe he wants to leave the question open till the last moment, to see how the winds will blow in the next few months. From a tactical point of view, anyone in his place would not hesitate to do the same. In conclusion, let us wish that the Geneva meeting 5 November will pave the way to the Geneva II conference on Syria and that the concerned parties will agree to participate without prior conditions, if only for the sole reason that the situation in Syria could spiral out of all control.
The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
