Undaunted by two aborted initiatives, UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura has come up with another plan for talks to end the crisis in the country. In a report submitted to the UN Security Council, de Mistura urges the formation of four working groups composed of members of the regime led by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and the domestic opposition to come up with ideas for the formation of a new governing body for the country. His proposal is the mirror image of Geneva Conference recommendations that called for the creation of a governing body, excluding top officials associated with the current regime, to lead the country to peace and stability. De Mistura's proposal has not endeared him to members of the Syrian opposition, however, who believe that the international community should be taking on a more forceful role, rather than more brainstorming about peace. Since he assumed his position nearly a year ago, de Mistura has failed to project the international resolve that members of the Syrian opposition believe is needed to end the crisis, including the establishment of no-fly zones and buffer zones in Syria and a ban on the regime's use of aircraft against civilians. The UN envoy's piecemeal approach has not sat well with a country that has tried all imaginable types of talks over the past four years, while the killing has continued. Aside from the four working groups that will focus on politics, humanitarian relief, security and reconstruction, the UN envoy has also proposed the formation of an international communications group to keep track of events in Syria. Critics of de Mistura say that he has skirted the thorny issues, including the removal of Al-Assad from power and the tough measures needed to enforce a final deal. Syrian activist Ali Al-Abdallah does not see much merit in the envoy's ideas, saying, “The plan de Mistura has proposed is abstract and impractical. It is the nearest thing to an admission of failure.” Said Al-Abdallah, “During his recent visit to Washington, de Mistura heard that the regime was opting for a military solution. When he visited Tehran, he heard the Iranians speak of a plan to form a government of national unity including members from the regime and the domestic opposition. And now he has come up with a plan to manage the crisis.” In Al-Abdallah's view, de Mistura is playing for time, “waiting for a regional and international consensus to evolve.” When faced with criticisms over his lack of commitment to the Geneva principles, de Mistura's answer has been that the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) group and other radical Islamist groups has changed the rules of the game in Syria and that a new approach is necessary. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been more forthright in his assessment of the situation in Syria, recently saying that the continuing conflict in the country is the result of “indecision” by the international community. “The Syrian people feel increasingly abandoned by the world as they enter the fifth year of a war that has torn their country apart. They and their neighbours continue to suffer under the eyes of an international community that is still divided and incapable of taking collective action to stop the killing and destruction,” the UN secretary-general said in a statement in March. Syrian opposition member Walid Al-Benni, however, agrees with de Mistura's assessment that the IS presence calls for a change of tactics. “The only good thing de Mistura said is that the fight against IS calls for political change in Syria. There are the seeds of a solution here because political change in Syria is the only way to stop the bloodshed,” he said. “But any political change in Syria will run into opposition not only from the terror groups, but also from Iran and its allies,” Al-Benni added. On two earlier occasions, de Mistura proposed plans of action that did not meet with success. In one plan he proposed opening the Turkish border to fighters wishing to reinforce Kurdish fighters opposed to IS. In the other he proposed a “freeze” on the fighting in Aleppo and other parts of the country. The Aleppo initiative did not last long, and the Turkish border initiative could have worsened the existing state of chaos in the country, critics note. During his year in office, de Mistura has not criticised the Syrian regime's use of barrel bombs and military aircraft against civilians. Nor has he called for a multinational force to be deployed in selected areas of the country. He has not engaged influential Arab countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the search for a solution. The Syrian government reacted to de Mistura's proposals in its usual phlegmatic manner, saying that it wanted “clarification.” For the past four years, the regime has dragged its feet over peace talks, reneged on its promises and generally used negotiations as a way to prolong its hold on power. Russia reacted favourably to the proposal while the US sat on the fence, and the Iranians have yet to respond. Some members of the Syrian opposition said that something good might come out of de Mistura's plan, but only if the proposed international communications group is given a regional and international mandate and the international community backs up its conclusions. The chances of this happening, however, look slim.
