The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2254 in December, based on an unprecedented consensus within the council, and in particular among the five permanent members, on the road ahead to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria. The resolution incorporated a roadmap towards that end. According to the timetable agreed upon, the first round of negotiations between the Syrian government and a unified Syrian opposition delegation was scheduled to start on 25 January in Geneva. However, the meeting was postponed for a few days on questions related to the composition of the opposition delegation. In November, the second Vienna meeting on Syria tasked the Saudis with convening a conference in Riyadh for the Syrian opposition to agree on its delegation for proximity talks in Switzerland. It was understood that the conference and the agreement it would reach would come in the context of the international consensus embodied in Resolution 2254. Jordan was asked to draw up a list of organisations and groups that are considered terrorist entities, so they could be excluded from representation in the unified opposition delegation. As of the time of writing, we are still waiting for this list. It goes without saying that there is no disagreement whatsoever on the question of including the Islamic State (IS) group and Al-Nusra Front, the two affiliated in varying degrees with Al-Qaeda. But a major stumbling block lies in gray groups like Jaysh Al-Islam, close to the Saudis and the Qataris, which is considered by most countries a terrorist group. To the astonishment of those followig developments in Syria, the Riyadh conference decided to include a certain Mohamed Alloush, commander of this terrorist group, in the unified delegation that the Syrian opposition entrusted to negotiate with the Syrian government. In the meantime, it was reported that the Russians threatened to name half of the opposition delegation in case there would be difficulties in reaching agreement on the final composition of the delegation. It seems that those countries that consider Resolution 2254 as nothing but an instrument to unseat Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and install a regime in Damascus that would be an extension of what is known as the Doha Coalition — chaperoned by the Saudis, the Qataris and the Turks — are trying hard to jump on the roadmap for a political solution in Syria and hijack the whole sequence to the end they have sought for the last four years; namely, to overthrow the Syrian government. It was a surprise to almost everyone that the Saudi foreign minister announced this month that both Saudi Arabia and the United States are working together to overthrow the Syrian president. After a meeting between US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi foreign minister in Riyadh on 23 January, Kerry said, commmenting on the talks, that the two governments agreed “to begin to lay down the process to try very hard to implement the Geneva Communiqué and have a transition that takes place according to UN Security Council resolutions as well as the Vienna communiqués of the Syria International Support Group.” Incidentally, the Vienna statements have stressed that the search for a political solution in Syria will be Syrian-led and Syrian owned, and that the future of Syria will be determined by the Syrians themselves, whether in presidential or parliamentary elections that are to take place within 18 months of the commencement of proximity talks between Damascus and the Syrian opposition. The anti-Assad coalition is working to make sure that this negotiating process leads to a solution it has failed to impose through the use of force in the last four years. This policy could prove a major hurdle facing the Security Council and the international community in their quest for a solution to the crisis in Syria, one that has eluded them because of the policies of the anti-Assad coalition, some Arab countries, and Erdogan's Turkey. Their major concern has been how to contain the emergence of Iran as a player in the Middle East, especially after the lifting of sanctions on 16 January in the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 14 July 2015 between the P5+1 and Iran. This anti-Assad coalition persists in pursuing policies that have proven ineffective in containing the emergence of Iran as a major Middle East player with power and influence in the region. The visit of Kerry to Saudi Arabia on 23 January, where he also met with counterparts from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), aimed at reassuring Gulf countries on American intentions and policies on defending and protecting the Gulf against any future adventurism on the part of the Iranians. In this context, the US secretary of state made it clear in the course of a joint press conference with the Saudi foreign minister that Washington “remains concerned about some of the activities that Iran is engaged in in other countries ... We have expressed our concern about support for terrorist groups like Hizbullah [and Iran's continuing development of] ballistic missiles.” It goes without saying that I do not share the characterisation of Kerry concerning Hizbullah. The Americans intend to reconvene the Syria International Support Group after the initial round of negotiations between the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition. This group of 17 countries, including Russia and Iran, drew up the two Vienna statements of 30 October and 14 November 2015, which have been the basis for Security Council Resolution 2254. In his talks in Riyadh with GCC foreign ministers, Kerry said, “We all agreed that immediately after the completion of the first round of the Syria discussions, the International Syria Support Group will convene ... because we want to keep the process moving and put to full test the readiness and willingness of people to live up to the two communiqués and UN resolution, and begin the process of bringing the transition council — transition governing process of Syria — into reality.” Diplomatically speaking, the American message is quite clear. No roadblocks please, and let us get moving with the implementation of the timeline that the the Security Council adopted in December in Resolution 2254. As for the future role of the Syrian president, the American secretary of state had this to say: “There are sharp divisions within the international community, especially about the future of Assad ... We know the war in Syria cannot end ... because he is the magnet that attracts the violent terrorism and jihadis who will continue to come as long as he or ... his supporters insist that he is a part of the long-term future. We know that is simply not possible.” Strangely enough, Kerry added later in the same press conference that the United States is going “to respect the right of Syrians to define and choose the future of Syria”. What is one to make of the two quotes, as far as the role of President Bashar Al-Assad in the future is concerned? Avoiding this impossible exercise, let me share with you a quote from what the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said at the same press conference: “We work with our American friends on trying to find a way to remove Bashar Al-Assad from Syria and move the country towards a better future.” If the Saudis and the anti-Assad coalition persist in this line of thinking, it does not augur well for the successful implementation of Security Council Resolution 2254. The writer is a former assistant to the foreign minister.
