An unprecedented ministerial meeting on Syria was held in Vienna on Friday, 30 October, and after a few hours of discussion agreed on a statement that, hopefully, will launch a credible process to reach a political solution. Hours before the meeting began, US President Barack Obama announced that 50 American soldiers will be sent to Syria, for deployment in the eastern and northeastern regions, according to the White House press secretary. He said the soldiers will not engage in combat and their mission will be limited to helping Kurdish and Arab forces fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS) group. The Vienna meeting could be a milestone in attempts to bring Syrian warring parties to agreement on a political roadmap for implementation of the transition in Syria, as agreed in the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. The ministerial meeting in the Austrian capital built on this communiqué and went further in outlining basic elements in the hoped-for transition. At the meeting were representatives of the countries known as the “Friends of Syria “ group, along with two new countries: Russia and Iran. Their presence has defined the meeting, and contributed to the writing of a statement that could be considered more balanced and more specific than the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012. It goes without saying that the situation on the ground, not only in Syria but also in the Middle East, is completely different from that of the summer of 2012, when the former United Nations envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, helped to write the Geneva Communiqué. There was no IS then, and neither the Russians nor the Iranians were heavily involved in Syria, as they have become in the last two years. On 30 September, Moscow launched air strikes against IS in Syria on the request of the Syrian government. As far as Iran is concerned, the July signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning the Iranian nuclear programme paved the way for the acceptance of Tehran in international and regional attempts to find a political solution in Syria. The three years separating the two communiqués concerning Syria — that of Geneva and of Vienna — have changed positions held by members of the original “Friends of Syria” group. Whereas the former did not deal with the state in Syria and only spoke of the formation of a transitional authority with full executive powers, the latter emphasises that Syrian state institutions should be kept intact. And while the first communiqué did not refer to the territorial integrity of Syria, the second communiqué stresses this point, goes further in respecting Syria's independence and refers to the country's secular identity. This is one of the most interesting points in the Vienna Communiqué, the word “secular” being a rarity these days in the political discourse of Middle Eastern countries. Of course, it will not sit well with most of the Islamist groups battling the Syrian army in Syria. That the communiqué notes that the Syrian people will determine the future of Syria will be welcomed, however. In Geneva, three years ago, the notion of the sovereignty of the Syrians was completely absent. The mere mention in the Vienna Communique that the whole process of political transition is Syrian-led and Syrian-owned is a complete departure from the letter and spirit of the Geneva Communiqué. We could argue that the original members of the “Friends of Syria” group have been chastened by developments within Syria and the Middle East in the last three years. One major development is the emergence of IS in 2014 as a major threat to the security and strategic interests of all stakeholders in Syria, the “Friends of Syria” group included. The sixth point in the Vienna Communiqué speaks of the necessity of defeating IS and other terrorist groups, as listed by the Security Council and according to the determination of the participants at the Vienna meeting last Friday. If the Vienna Communiqué shows consensus on basic principles that will guide diplomatic and political efforts in Syria, this should mean that there is a similar consensus on the future role of President Bashar Al-Assad, either in the transitional period or the years after. This could explain why the communiqué says that during the “next few days” participants at the Vienna meeting will work to narrow “remaining differences.” They agreed to meet again in two weeks' time, which is a promising sign that the powers that have been involved in the Syrian crisis are determined today, more than ever, to reach a political solution in Syria that has eluded them for the past four years. Is there a chance that the participants at the Vienna meetings, next time they meet, will have reached a compromise solution on the role of the Syrian president in his country's political future? “There is no way that President Assad can unite and govern Syria,” according to US Secretary of State John Kerry, He was speaking after the Vienna meeting at a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, and the United Nations envoy to Syria, Steffan de Mistura. As for Saudi Arabia, its foreign minister said that President Assad will leave power, either through political means or by military force. This was a startling statement indeed, coming from a top diplomat. So the question remains as to the prospect of a compromise on the future role of the Syrian president. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
