Syria, Chemical Weapons Use and the Need for Negotiated Peace Efforts
The vote in the British Parliament against a punitive strike at the Syrian government, President Obama’s decision to consult Congress after it comes into session, the holding of the G20 Summit in St Petersburg, Russia, and a wide-spread desire on the part of many governments to be informed of the conclusions of the UN chemical weapons experts who had been in Syria — all has slowed a “rush to war”. The time gained must be used wisely to create a renewed negotiated peace effort. There are at least two major elements to such a renewed peace effort.
The first element is the regional dimension — bringing together the major external powers which have an influence and an interest in the Syrian conflict. This effort is being called “Geneva II” after a 30 June 2012 “Geneva I” meeting which reached a broad agreement among Russia and the USA on an orderly transition of power within Syria — although the fate of President Assad was left vague.
“Geneva II” needs to bring into negotiation all the regional States as well as the “Great Powers”: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon as well as the USA, Russia, France and England. Egypt would be a logical participant were it to have a stable government by then.
The second element — but which may be the most important — is good faith negotiations among the current administration of Syria, the armed opposition movements, and as representative-as-possible non-armed political currents within Syria. Since many of these factions are not speaking to each other and often have contested or unclear leadership, there are, no doubt, preliminary efforts needed before large-scale negotiations among Syrians can be carried out. Such preliminary efforts can be encouraged by non-Syrian organizations and various forms of Track II diplomacy. The United Nations Secretariat also has a role to play here.