The international contact group on Syria may start working in October, according to Mikhail Bogdanov, the special presidential envoy for the Middle East and Africa, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia. Moscow thinks that demanding the resignation of Syrian President Bashar Assad is unacceptable. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the future of the country should be determined by the Syrian nation on the basis of the Geneva communiqué of 2013 without any external interference. Russia and some Middle East countries have different views on the process, including the problem of Assad’s presidency. “If some of our partners believe that it should be agreed beforehand that at the end of a transactional period the President leaves his position, for Russia this is unacceptable,” Lavrov said. He stressed that the sides should negotiate, bring all opposition groups to the talks, so that their delegation could present a constructive position without any preliminary demands and negotiate with the delegation of the Syrian government.
Stanislav Ivanov, 2nd Rank State Councilor, an expert of the Russian Security Council Scientific Council, told Vestnik Kavkaza about his view on the situation, which differed from the Foreign Ministry’s position.
- Moscow is preparing the international conference for a settlement of the Syrian conflict – Geneva-3. What do you think about the chances of a settlement of the conflict between Damascus and the opposition? Have they grown after Geneva-2?
- Almost nothing has changed inside Syria. Along with governmental troops, the Free Syrian Army is acting there, as well as Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra, and Kurdish enclaves. There are also smaller radical Islamist groups which control separate territories. A much more important event in the period was the signing of the agreement between Iran and the 5+1 that Iran is shutting down its nuclear program, and the international community will steadily eliminate sanctions. Of course, Iran will get a greater opportunity of participation in the Syrian crisis, and it will obviously support Bashar Assad greatly. Meanwhile, Turkey plans to organize a security zone in the near-border territories not only against Islamic State, but also against Kurdish militants. Speaking about Geneva, I think it is an ineffective form, as the conflicting parties (except for the government one) don’t participate in the talks. Groups which live abroad – in Istanbul, Doha, Paris, Brussels, Moscow – participate in them. Jabhat al-Nusra, Islamic State, and the Free Syrian Army don’t participate in them, as far as I understand. Such conferences are empty talks which will bring no results.
Everybody expects that Bashar Assad will declare his resignation and open the door to a peaceful settlement. But he doesn’t intend to declare his resignation. At the same time, the USA, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan think that Bashar Assad is an illegal president, and that’s why they make such a demand: any peaceful settlement should begin from Assad’s resignation. I think due to the strengthening of Iran’s position and the Lebanese Hezbollah, there will be more chances to protect the “piece” which is controlled by Assad. It seems there will be a scenario of “a small frozen Somalia.” And Geneva-3 won’t produce anything.
- Are there any positions on which Assad and the opposition could find common ground?
- His Shiite circle says: “We are the legal authorities; we won’t give a piece of our land or our power.” The opposition states: “We are the representatives of the Sunni majority; we don’t connect our future with Bashar Assad. There should be either a coalition government or holding elections without Assad.” They have reasons for stating this, as the Sunni population of Syria is about 60%, while the Alawites’ clan is 12%.
The Kurds, who make up 10-12% of the population, are taking a neutral position at the moment. Assad has withdrawn troops and had left them without either weapons or support, at least air-cover, for protection from Islamic State. They were supported by Turkish and Iraqi Kurds, so they could protect Kobani, other cities – three enclaves on the Turkish-Syrian border. The Kurds say: “We don’t really care whether it will be Assad or the Syrian opposition. We want our interests and rights to be considered in the future Syrian Constitution.” However, neither Assad nor Jabhat al-Nusra, nor Islamic State, nor the Free Syrian Army, nor the Kurds see a real future for Syria. Syria has collapsed. If it is pulled together, there will be a question: who needs this future Syria?
France created Syria from the fragments of the Ottoman Empire, according to a mandate of the League of Nations. But today there is no such force which could reconstruct the space and call it Syria. There are no grounds for its reconstruction. If Assad could agree with the Free Syrian Army, they could organize a union against Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, make peace with the Kurds, and probably there would be prospects. However, any agreement between Damascus and the opposition requires giving power to the opposition. Assad and his Alawite circle are not ready for this. The role of external forces is big. Hezbollah, Iranian IRGC, militants who are trained in Jordan, Turkey, due to support from Saudi Arabia and the USA.
There are no prospects for Geneva-3 today. First of all, to hold it they must bring field commanders, the fighting sides, rather than migrants. Secondly, there should be an agreement with Assad that he is ready to leave. For example, let’s create a coalition government, the Alawite clan maintains 10%, two-three ministry positions; Assad takes the position of the Healthcare Ministry; all special forces are withdrawn, and the Free Syrian Army comes to power. But Damascus is not ready for this. They are afraid of repressions against the Alawites. They are afraid of the fates of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. This situation can last for decades.
- The Foreign Minister says that it is unacceptable to demand Assad’s resignation as a preliminary demand for a political settlement…
- I understand Lavrov, but he doesn’t consider the fact that the majority of the Syrian population are Sunni Arabs. They are 60-70%. They demand their power and participation in the future Syria.
Of course Bashar Assad received a difficult heritage – 50 years of martial law; all political parties and civil society were forbidden; the Kurds were subhuman; 300 thousand Kurds were non-citizens; prisons; 19 special services. Assad wasn’t ready for this. He was a doctor in a London hospital and then in Syria. Suddenly, his elder brother, who was to take the place of Hafez Assad, died in a car accident. When this popular politician, the only successor died, they didn’t find a median solution and invited Bashar Assad to rule the country. He wasn’t ready. The Alawite clan took hold in his name, his family. His figure made their power legitimate, especially in the period of the Arab Spring.
I think it wasn’t he who ordered the use of aviation, artillery and tanks against the protesting cities, villages, people. However, it happened. According to the official data, more than 220 thousand Syrians died; about a million were injured; several million people became refugees. Such losses for this small country are greater than the losses in World War II for participating countries.
Today there is only one way out – he should share power, find a civilized way out to avoid a reverse of the coin – repressions, executions of Alawites and Bashar Assad himself. Unfortunately, few people think about this; everybody tries to preserve the status quo.
- What is the role of foreign forces in the Syrian conflict?
- Lebanon is objectively involved in the events. The Sunnis of Lebanon help the Sunni group – the Free Syrian Army. Militants of Hezbollah help Bashar Assad. Christians take a neutral position, but also help Christians of Syria. The whole region is involved in this.
The monarchies of the Persian Gulf firmly stand for the overthrow of Assad; they think he is an Iranian agent in the region, a betrayer of the Arab ummah. They suffered Hafez Assad, as he was Iran’s friend, but used the friendship in favor of the Arabs’ interests. Bashar Assad became dependent on Iran, and Tehran used him in its own interests.
The monarchies of the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Jordan are afraid of the spread of the Shiite influence of Iran in the region. There are Shiite communities in all of these countries. In Syria – the Alawites, in Turkey – the Alewites, in Lebanon – Hezbollah, in Bahrain – two thirds of the population are Shiites, in Yemen – Houthis, in Saudi Arabia – its eastern provinces.
They believe that if Assad – an island of influence of Shiite ideology in the region – is not overthrown, the Shiite arc will spread, and they will have to share power with their Shiite communities. Of course, Sunni ruling clans don’t want to share power, financial flows, and so on. This is the main point of the conflict.
There is civil war not only in Syria, but also in Iraq. Islamic State is a secondary problem. The main thing is that the Sunnis are fighting the Shiites in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. In Lebanon, they managed to find a compromise. But if Assad’s regime fell in Syria, it would inevitably damage Lebanon.
My opinion may not coincide with Lavrov’s opinion or the views of the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of Economics, where I used to work.
