The fifth round of the Astana talks held in the Kazakh capital on 4 July were reportedly focused on a December ceasefire under a de-escalation agreement brokered by Russia, Turkey and Iran. However, the talks failed either to agree on the ceasefire or to define the so-called de-escalation zones, and it was boycotted by the Syrian armed opposition factions operating in southern Syria. The Russians had tried to demarcate areas where a long-term ceasefire could be applied in Syria, a truce that would be the prelude to a Russian-imposed political solution. Yet, in the last round of the talks in the Kazakh capital, as in previous rounds, the Russians failed to gather the opposition and the regime in one room to negotiate. The Astana talks are separate from the UN-sponsored talks on Syria in Geneva, despite Russia's attempts to make them a more important alternative. Perhaps their only benefit now is the spotlight they place on the vulnerability of the Iranian role compared to the Russian and Turkish roles on the ground. Russia is able to control the regime led by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and Turkey is able to control many of the Syrian armed opposition factions, while Iran controls only non-Syrian militias from Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Russia and Turkey want to see Iran exit from Syria in any future agreement. Iran's involvement in the Astana talks may thus seem to be a way to get it out of Syria without resorting to other means, but Tehran has also made alliances with the Al-Assad regime, Shia militias and Kurdish groups in Syria in an effort to expand its influence, and, together with the Lebanese Shia group Hizbullah, establish a dominant position in the Levant. Iran has also benefited from another unofficial alliance with the United States in efforts to defeat the Islamic State (IS) group in neighbouring Iraq. It thus seems doubtful that the weak image projected by Iran in Astana is a true picture of its capabilities. Meanwhile, the latest round of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, the Geneva VII Conference, also ended with no tangible progress and an inability to break the stalemate in the negotiations between the Syrian opposition and the regime. According to the opposition, the conference was “meaningless and unnecessary.” The Syrian opposition accused the regime of refusing to engage in the political process and continuing to use the pretext of terrorism to evade its benefits. Even UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura said the regime did not want to expedite the negotiations after discussing topics such as the political transition, constitutional, electoral and security issues, and confidence-building measures with the opposition in Geneva. One member of the opposition Higher Negotiations Committee speaking on condition of anonymity told Al-Ahram Weekly that de Mistura “knew from the outset that this round of the Geneva Conference would not lead to any progress because he is fully aware of the intransigence of the Al-Assad regime which does not want to discuss the political transition.” “Since its arrival in Geneva, the regime delegation has refused to discuss any subject other than terrorism, even as the opposition has presented hundreds of documents proving that the regime is the lead terrorist in Syria. The only positive thing about this round was that the Al-Assad regime has shown the world that it is the one hindering the negotiations,” he said. Bashaar Al-Jaafari, head of the regime delegation of the conference, said that the talks had focused on counter-terrorism. “We explained the need to combat terrorism and urged the conference to submit our concerns to the UN Security Council about the opposition being the executer of foreign agendas in Syria,” Al-Jaafari said. De Mistura ended the latest round of the talks with the comment that “while there have been no major breakthroughs, incremental progress was made. What we are working on in Geneva is a possible rapprochement between the regime and opposition delegations and in preparation for a possible solution as a result of the international consensus to end the tragedy in Syria.” Geneva, then, was merely a game of procrastination, and none of the main players, particularly Russia and the United States, were serious about imposing conditions on either the opposition or the regime. However, despite the failure of the official talks, there is the possibility of an alternative solution that starts from scratch and does not adopt the Geneva Principles set out five years ago that require the formation of a new transitional government with full powers in Syria, agreed prior to Russia's military intervention in the country and the deterioration of the armed opposition. On 8 July, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced this alternative after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg when the two presidents reached a cease-fire agreement on southern Syria. The French government announced that it intended to consult with the Americans by forming an international group to plan a road map on the future of Syria, in which the permanent members of the UN Security Council and representatives of the Syrian regime, the opposition and the regional parties would participate. Meanwhile, attempts are also underway to unify the Syrian opposition under the Higher Negotiations Committee to form a sole negotiating group that would include both the Cairo and Moscow platforms decided at earlier talks in the two capitals. The involvement of the Cairo platform seems to be acceptable to the Syrian opposition, yet that of Moscow is still difficult because of attempts to cause a breach in the opposition and force it to moderate its demands. Regional and international parties and some Syrian parties are counting on an international summit meeting next October to discuss the fight against terrorism before seeing progress on Syria, hoping that this will suggest practical solutions to the terrorism emanating from the Middle East. The Astana and Geneva talks have not been able to bring peace to Syria and instead have become a source of constant pressure on the opposition from international and regional parties, creating a state of pessimism among opponents of the Syrian regime. “Despite the tendency in the United States over the past six years to confront the Al-Assad regime with its crimes, the regime has been allowed to continue with its actions supported by Moscow and Tehran,” commented Said Yehia Eqab, a member of the Syrian opposition. The fear now is that while the talks on Syria will no doubt continue, so, too, will the killings. There are fears that the international consensus on the need to end the conflict in Syria will in fact end in nothing, as it has at the Astana talks and Geneva VII Conference.
