Views /Opinion

By Louis Charbonneau

How deep is the divide separating Russia and the US on Syria? A photo from the recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland says it all — two grim-faced leaders slouched in their chairs, Barack Obama biting his lip and Vladimir Putin staring at the floor.

The awkward photo opportunity, which went viral on the Internet, highlights the increasingly tense relationship between the former Cold War foes who find it difficult to agree on a series of high-profile issues, including Syria and a fugitive US intelligence contractor whom Putin refuses to extradite.

Washington and Moscow have been trying since May to organise an international peace conference to bring an end to the violence. But hopes that such a conference will take place anytime soon — if at all — are fading quickly. US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov originally announced that they would try to hold the conference, which is intended to bring rebels and representatives of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s government to the negotiating table, by the end of May. 

Earlier this week UN-Arab League peace mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, who held talks with senior US and Russian officials in Geneva, ruled out a peace conference before August. Diplomats at the UN in New York say it is unclear whether the peace conference will take place at all.

“It’s not looking too good,” a senior Western diplomat said. The point of the conference was to revive a plan adopted last year in Geneva. At that time, Washington and Moscow agreed on the need for a transitional Syrian government, but left open the question of whether Assad could participate in the process.

 

ASSAD WON’T HAND OVER POWER

There are other sticking points in discussions on how to make what UN diplomats have been calling “Geneva 2” take place at all — who will represent Assad’s government and the Syrian opposition at the negotiating table. There is still no agreement on the lineup of potential negotiators. Then there is the issue of whether Assad’s other key ally Iran should participate, as Russia wants but Western governments dislike.

Recently, Assad’s forces have enjoyed some military successes. They recaptured two towns near the Lebanese border, while rebels complain about insufficient arms and ammunition. 

This, diplomats say, makes both Assad’s government and the opposition more reluctant to seek a compromise and diplomacy in Geneva — Assad because he thinks he can win the war militarily, and the opposition because it does not want to negotiate from a position of weakness and is holding out for more weapons.

Russia and China long ago ruled out sanctioning Syria and have vetoed three Western and Gulf Arab-backed resolutions condemning Assad’s government for an increasingly sectarian war that the UN says has killed more than 90,000.

 

GRIM PROSPECTS FOR DIPLOMACY

Richard Gowan of New York University predicted that a collapse of Kerry’s peace conference plan will increase pressure on Obama to send more and heavier weapons to the Syrian rebels. “If the Geneva proposal fails, there will be pressure on the US to move beyond its current offer of light weapons to the rebels, especially if Assad’s forces score more victories,” Gowan said. 

“Kerry’s bet on Geneva may backfire by demonstrating that diplomacy is really a lost cause, but perhaps Kerry, who has reportedly argued for air strikes, is fine with that,” he said.

Washington’s cautious move to begin arming moderate Syrian rebels — not Islamist militants who are increasingly present in the conflict — came after it said Assad’s forces had crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons. 

The Syrian government denies the charge and says the rebels have used chemical arms. It also accuses Western and Gulf Arab governments of arming the opposition. A March 2011 council resolution authorised military intervention in Libya and gave a green light for Nato to mount an operation to protect civilians that led to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster and death at the hands of rebel forces. No Western nations have called for something similar in Syria, and Russia has vowed to prevent a similar move in Syria. There may be no swift end to the war. And even if the opposition were to prevail, it is unlikely to bring stability.

“The Syrian civil war is likely to go on for years,” said Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

“It is not just that it is proving harder and taking longer to oust the Assad regime than many expected,” he said.

“It is also that even if the regime were to be removed, what would follow would be a prolonged round of fighting among opposition forces who disagree on just about everything except their opposition to the current regime.”          REUTERS

By Louis Charbonneau

How deep is the divide separating Russia and the US on Syria? A photo from the recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland says it all — two grim-faced leaders slouched in their chairs, Barack Obama biting his lip and Vladimir Putin staring at the floor.

The awkward photo opportunity, which went viral on the Internet, highlights the increasingly tense relationship between the former Cold War foes who find it difficult to agree on a series of high-profile issues, including Syria and a fugitive US intelligence contractor whom Putin refuses to extradite.

Washington and Moscow have been trying since May to organise an international peace conference to bring an end to the violence. But hopes that such a conference will take place anytime soon — if at all — are fading quickly. US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov originally announced that they would try to hold the conference, which is intended to bring rebels and representatives of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s government to the negotiating table, by the end of May. 

Earlier this week UN-Arab League peace mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, who held talks with senior US and Russian officials in Geneva, ruled out a peace conference before August. Diplomats at the UN in New York say it is unclear whether the peace conference will take place at all.

“It’s not looking too good,” a senior Western diplomat said. The point of the conference was to revive a plan adopted last year in Geneva. At that time, Washington and Moscow agreed on the need for a transitional Syrian government, but left open the question of whether Assad could participate in the process.

 

ASSAD WON’T HAND OVER POWER

There are other sticking points in discussions on how to make what UN diplomats have been calling “Geneva 2” take place at all — who will represent Assad’s government and the Syrian opposition at the negotiating table. There is still no agreement on the lineup of potential negotiators. Then there is the issue of whether Assad’s other key ally Iran should participate, as Russia wants but Western governments dislike.

Recently, Assad’s forces have enjoyed some military successes. They recaptured two towns near the Lebanese border, while rebels complain about insufficient arms and ammunition. 

This, diplomats say, makes both Assad’s government and the opposition more reluctant to seek a compromise and diplomacy in Geneva — Assad because he thinks he can win the war militarily, and the opposition because it does not want to negotiate from a position of weakness and is holding out for more weapons.

Russia and China long ago ruled out sanctioning Syria and have vetoed three Western and Gulf Arab-backed resolutions condemning Assad’s government for an increasingly sectarian war that the UN says has killed more than 90,000.

 

GRIM PROSPECTS FOR DIPLOMACY

Richard Gowan of New York University predicted that a collapse of Kerry’s peace conference plan will increase pressure on Obama to send more and heavier weapons to the Syrian rebels. “If the Geneva proposal fails, there will be pressure on the US to move beyond its current offer of light weapons to the rebels, especially if Assad’s forces score more victories,” Gowan said. 

“Kerry’s bet on Geneva may backfire by demonstrating that diplomacy is really a lost cause, but perhaps Kerry, who has reportedly argued for air strikes, is fine with that,” he said.

Washington’s cautious move to begin arming moderate Syrian rebels — not Islamist militants who are increasingly present in the conflict — came after it said Assad’s forces had crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons. 

The Syrian government denies the charge and says the rebels have used chemical arms. It also accuses Western and Gulf Arab governments of arming the opposition. A March 2011 council resolution authorised military intervention in Libya and gave a green light for Nato to mount an operation to protect civilians that led to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s ouster and death at the hands of rebel forces. No Western nations have called for something similar in Syria, and Russia has vowed to prevent a similar move in Syria. There may be no swift end to the war. And even if the opposition were to prevail, it is unlikely to bring stability.

“The Syrian civil war is likely to go on for years,” said Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

“It is not just that it is proving harder and taking longer to oust the Assad regime than many expected,” he said.

“It is also that even if the regime were to be removed, what would follow would be a prolonged round of fighting among opposition forces who disagree on just about everything except their opposition to the current regime.”          REUTERS