The situation in Syria was one of the topics on the agenda of the 52nd Munich Security Conference that opened on Friday, 12 February. The previous day, the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) concluded a two-day meeting in the city. A statement released at the end of the meeting reaffirmed the commitment of participants to “facilitate the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 ... ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety, press for the end of any indiscriminate use of weapons; support and accelerate the agreement and implementation of a nationwide ceasefire … facilitate immediate humanitarian access to besieged and hard-to-reach areas and the release of any arbitrarily detained persons … and fight terrorism.” UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura said that he welcomed the commitment of the ISSG and was hopeful that negotiations between the Syrian government and the opposition will resume as scheduled on 25 February, and that the two sides as well as their respective international, regional and Arab backers would realise that no one can win the war in Syria. Wise counsel in case it is heeded. According to the statement by the ISSG, a task force would be established to agree on the necessary arrangements for a ceasefire in Syria within a week — or by 19 February. Needless to say, there was agreement within the group that this ceasefire will not apply to fighting the Islamic State (IS) group and Al-Nusra Front, the latter fighting under the banner of Al-Qaeda. The ink on the ISSG statement had not even dried when Turkish authorities announced on 13 February that Saudi fighter planes had landed at Encyrilk Airbase in Turkey, used by NATO. The following day, in the evening, the Syrian SANA news agency circulated a statement by the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that referred to a land incursion by a column of Turkish armoured vehicles into Syrian territory after constant Turkish bombardment from the air of positions held by Kurdish fighting forces in Syria. These forces are backed by the United States. It is interesting to note in this respect that a few days earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayeb Erdogan accused Washington of providing support to what he described as “terrorists”. Despite the fleeting optimism that accompanied the ISSG statement, the situation on the ground within Syria does not augur well for the successful implementation of the commitments made in Munich concerning the Syrian crisis. The most alarming comment in this context was made by the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia in Munich. He said that defeating IS necessitates the removal of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad from power. Unheard of before, this linkage between routing IS and the overthrow of Al-Assad could shed light on the willingness of Saudi Arabia to deploy ground forces in Syria. When the Saudis announced this willingness some were afraid that the true target was not IS as much as providing support to armed groups battling the Syrian army after the latter's string of victories backed by Russian air support turned the tide on the battlefield. Those fears have been borne out, unfortunately. And not to be outdone, the Iranians declared on 14 February that they would be willing to provide Syrian forces with air support in case the Syrian government asks for such help. These fast-moving developments could spin out of control if the two great powers, Russia and the United States, do not reach an understanding on the inevitability of a ceasefire in Syria to be enforced by all means. Russia's warning that a land invasion of Syria could lead to a prolonged war, with all its attendant consequences for the Middle East and the Gulf, should be heeded. Egypt, so far, has been silent, save what President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi said in his speech to the Egyptian House of Representatives on Saturday, 13 February, that Egypt works for a political solution in Syria as well as in Libya and Yemen. Understandably, Cairo does not want to appear on a collision course with Saudi Arabia in Syria, but the truth remains that Egypt cannot keep silent if the Turkish army enters Syrian territories, even if allied with the Saudis. The question, from the Egyptian point of view, is not who rules in Damascus, but rather to prevent by all means the establisment of a Saudi- and Turkish-backed Islamist government in Syria. The US-led international coalition to degrade and defeat IS should realise that fighting the devil with a lesser evil is not a winning proposition in its avowed fight against terrorism. To win this war, the policies of its various members, which have reached 66 countries so far, must be coordinated and consistent. This clash of policies should end. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
