Not much hope for quick and bloodless resolution to Syrian crisis
By Orkhan Sattarov, exclusively to VK
After the failure of the three Syrian resolutions in the UN Security Council called to stop the bloodshed in the country vetoed by Russia and China, who said that these documents presented the situation one-sidedly, today there appeared certain signs that the major world powers have finally worked out a common position. The US mentioned the rapprochement of the UN-members’ positions on March, 20. The rapprochement is due to the mediatory efforts of the ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who enjoys respect and trust of all parties. It seems that Washington wasn’t mistaken and the sides are really moving towards a compromise. The next day the UN Security Council made a statement that fully supported Annan’s peacemaking plan and obliged all conflict parties to follow it.
Of course, this statement doesn’t have the status of a resolution so it can’t really oblige any side to so anything, but still it’s an occasion to look at things with a greater deal of optimism: US and EU on the one hand and Russia and China on the other have finally agreed on something. The West hailed the statement as it ‘demonstrates that Assad can’t count on Russia’s support no matter what’, as German FM said. However, such an interpretation seems to shift assent, as this joint statement is as much a warning to the opposition as it is to Assad.
Russia and China have every right to feel victorious too, and especially Russia, as Russian diplomats took active part in the Syrian crisis mediation while China limited itself with the resolution vote. In fact, Moscow and Beijing didn’t have to yield one iota: according to their position the responsibility for the bloodshed should be put not only upon Assad’s government but on armed opposition units operating in the country. This position was accepted in the joint statement of March, 21. Kofi Annan’s mission also takes this position into consideration and Bashar Assad still doesn’t find himself in total isolation – the personal meeting between him and Mr Annan proves that.
It seems that the outcome of this round of discussion can be called ‘a draw’, as all parties have gained something. The US and the West enlisted – at list for now – Russia’s and China’s support, while Moscow and Beijing assured that the violence would be blamed not only on Assad, but his rivals as well. And if the peacemaking plan by Kofi Annan works it would be the best possible outcome for all parties, including the Syrian people.
The problem is, however, that this plan’s success shouldn’t at all be taken for granted, especially when a great number of peace initiatives has already failed since the beginning of the crisis. And if this one also fails, the UN Security Council will have ‘to take further steps’ and these steps will certainly become a matter of heated discussion between the West and Russian-Chinese alliance.
So this seeming ‘unity’ in the UN proves to be nothing but a diplomatic mask called to hide the unresolved differences between the two sides. Today the UN Security Council is subjected to a wave of harsh critics due to its inability to stop the ongoing bloodshed in Syria, and a joint statement seems to be a rather convenient way to get rid of this critics. But is a new resolution is discussed one can’t expect that the parties would act as unanimously as they did now. The main question is who will be blamed for the crisis by the international community and thus who will have to suffer the effects of the sanctions, and until there’s a common position on this issue in the Council there is no hope of any end to the Syrian problem.
It is even harder to make prognosis on the possible terms of the crisis’ resolution ‘from the inside’ without any interference. Opposition is consolidating its forces but today Assad’s regime still has chances win this fight for power. Despite the fact that the unrest goes on for a year now, the opposition still didn’t unite in the fight with the common enemy which is still pretty strong. The problem is that the Syrian opposition movement is far too heterogeneous. According to Turkish expert Ali Semin, the situation is also being aggravated by the foreign interference, while the Syrian opposition doesn’t have a necessary level of organization. Mr Semin believes that the main problem of the opposition is that its leaders don’t trust each other and have different positions on whom they should trust among the foreign players. Some try to establish relations with France, others – with Turkey, some try to make alliance with the Kurd movement. The notions on the means by which the crisis should be resolved also differ: some prefer diplomacy, others take up arms.
Against this background the position of the official Damask seems to be more solid. The stalemate situation in the UN Security Council also plays in the hands of Assad. Until the opposition groups and the foreign players are able to agree there’s a little chance of Assad’s opponents winning this fight. And even if the opposition manages to win, its disagreements would act like a delayed bomb: as the experience of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan shows, a civic war between the winners is quite a realistic possibility.
However, there’s also no hope for a quick victory for Bashar Assad either. The opposition isn’t going to give up, while the Iranian crisis aggravates the position of the official Damask.
So there’s actually not much hope for quick and bloodless resolution to Syrian crisis. Neither of the rivals is going to compromise, and the bloodshed can go on for months unless the West and Russia finally work out a common position. Whether it is possible or not – we’ll see after the first official responses to Annan’s plan from Moscow and Washington.
