| New York Times | - |
BEIRUT, Lebanon - With President Bashar al-Assad of Syria
facing battlefield setbacks, diplomats from Russia, the United States
and several Middle Eastern powers are engaged in a burst of diplomatic
activity, trying to head off a deeper collapse of ...
BEIRUT, Lebanon — With President Bashar al-Assad of Syria facing battlefield setbacks, diplomats from Russia,
the United States and several Middle Eastern powers are engaged in a
burst of diplomatic activity, trying to head off a deeper collapse of
the country that could further strengthen the militant group Islamic
State.
Russia,
Mr. Assad’s most powerful backer, has built new ties with Saudi Arabia,
a fervent opponent, and even brokered a meeting between high-ranking
Saudi and Syrian intelligence officials. On Tuesday, the Saudi foreign
minister, Adel al-Jubeir, met with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey
V. Lavrov, in Moscow, wrangling over the fate of Mr. Assad.
Unusual
meetings have come in quick succession. Last week, the top Russian,
American and Saudi envoys held their first three-way meeting on Syria;
Russian officials briefed Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.
He then met officials in Oman, whose ties to both Saudi Arabia and Iran
raised the prospect of talks between those archrivals. Russia stopped
blocking an international inquiry into who has used chemical weapons in
Syria, a longstanding American priority.
The
flurry of diplomacy suggests that Russia and the United States, whose
differences have long jammed efforts to resolve the conflict, are making
newly concerted strides toward goals they have long claimed to share: a
political solution to Syria’s multisided civil war and better
strategies to fight the Islamic State.
Russia
has played the most prominent public role so far in the new diplomacy.
Some analysts say that the discussion reflects a softening of the Obama
administration’s long-held position that “Assad must go,” and a fear,
shared with Russia, that the Islamic State could be the primary
beneficiary if Mr. Assad’s government continues to weaken, as they
expect, or even to collapse entirely, which they view as less likely but
increasingly possible.
The
Syrian government has been jarred by a series of defeats on the
battlefield and difficulty recruiting for its forces, even among members
of Mr. Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Having lost large sections of the
country to the Islamic State and various rebel forces, it is
concentrating its remaining military strength in the capital, Damascus,
and other crucial cities in western Syria.
Mr.
Assad’s opponents, too, have reason to reassess strategy; American
efforts to build a proxy force in Syria have largely failed, insurgent
groups have their own attrition problems, and Saudi Arabia and Turkey
face political and security blowback at home.
As
the military situation continues to deteriorate, the major powers are
growing increasingly nervous. Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst with
the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a vociferous
critic of Mr. Assad, said the United States was letting Russia take the
lead because “they don’t want to own this.” If anything, Mr. Hokayem
added, “it’s the United States that has moved closer to Russia’s
position” that Mr. Assad could be part of the transitional government
that is the stated goal of any negotiations.
Regional news outlets have attributed the outburst of diplomatic activity to the aftermath of the tentative nuclear deal with Iran,
which has “has thrown a great stone into the region’s waters,” as the
Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad put it. The pan-Arab daily Rai al-Youm went
so far as to declare that “a political resolution is taking shape with
notable speed.”
But
analysts in the region, across the political spectrum, strongly caution
that no breakthroughs can be expected soon. Fundamental disconnects
remain, and in the diplomatic dance, each side claims that its
adversaries are coming around to its point of view.
Russian
and Iranian officials suggest that Saudi Arabia, the United States and
allies like Turkey are coming to realize that fighting terrorism is more
important than ousting Mr. Assad, though Mr. Jubeir insisted after his
meeting with Mr. Lavrov that “there is no place for Assad in the future
of Syria.” Conversely, American and Turkish officials, who contend that
his rule drives radicalism, say that Russia has grown more willing to
see him replaced.
And
even if real consensus can be reached, any agreement would have little
meaning right now, when many forces on the ground still believe they can
gain by fighting. Any deal that emerges would be likely to cover only
the government-held western spine of Syria and parts of the south, where
relatively moderate insurgents are strongest. It is virtually
inconceivable that the Islamic State, entrenched in eastern Syria, or
the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria and a powerful force in the
northwest, would be included.
What
is nonetheless taking place internationally is a shift in tone, a sense
of movement below the surface. That alone is notable in a context of
divides that can seem unbridgeable, after four and a half years of
fighting that has killed at least a quarter-million people and driven
the worst refugee crisis in a generation.
Of
all the recent diplomatic exchanges and openings, none is more
important than the apparent new spirit of cooperation between Russia and
the United States. Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of a council that advises
the Kremlin on foreign policy, said that conversations were returning to
the topic of Syria after a year of exclusive focus on the Iran deal,
with each side a bit “less firm” in its position.
“Saudi
still believes that Assad should go, but now they are a little less
sure that the alternative will be better,” he said in a recent interview
with The New York Times. “Russia still believes he should stay, but
cannot ignore that the general situation is changing, that the strategic
position for Syria is much worse now than before.”
end quote from:
Senior
American officials say Russian officials have appeared to be more open
in recent weeks to discussions about replacing Mr. Assad. These
officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic
deliberations, say Moscow is increasingly worried about Mr. Assad’s
precarious position and the rise of extremist groups, which have
recruited several thousand Russian citizens to fight in Syria.
But
the discussions are tentative, and the officials said that if Russia
someday agreed to broker a deal to move Mr. Assad aside, it would almost
certainly insist on another Alawite, a member of Mr. Assad’s minority
sect.
“It’s encouraging, but we’re still a long ways off,” said one senior American official.
Russian officials strongly deny their position has changed.
Mr.
Hokayem and other analysts note the Obama administration has recently
echoed some Russian positions, treating extremist groups as a more
urgent threat than Mr. Assad, and saying that Iran, Syria’s close ally,
would have to buy into any political solution.
That
is how Syria’s government has framed the new diplomacy, with the deputy
foreign minister, Fayssal al-Mekdad, calling it “a clear and explicit
recognition from the countries leading the war on Syria that they have
erred and must step back and take responsibility in this regard.”
There
have been subtle shifts of diplomatic language that suggest the United
States and its allies could even be backing off one of their main
demands — that Mr. Assad step down as a prerequisite for forming a
transitional government.
That
has been the critical difference in how Russia and the United States
interpret the internationally agreed Geneva framework, which calls for
the transfer of power to a transitional government acceptable to all
sides but does not specify whether Mr. Assad can be part of it. The
United States and its allies have long said no; Russia says yes, adding
that Mr. Assad’s departure cannot be a precondition for talks.
The
pro-government newspaper Al Watan noted that at last week’s three-way
meeting in Qatar, Secretary of State John Kerry did not repeat the
American demand that Mr. Assad step aside. He declared only that the
Syrian leader had “lost his legitimacy.”
And
even the Saudi newspaper Al Watan — no connection to the Syrian one —
used a notable phrase, saying that while Mr. Assad’s government was to
blame for Syria’s troubles, a solution could come “ either by reforming
it, or by removing it immediately, or in stages.”
Such
shifts have driven an emerging theory about the outlines of an eventual
compromise — albeit one that could take years to achieve.
The
gist is that a new government would be formed including elements of the
current government — perhaps including Mr. Assad for a finite period —
and moderate Syrian opposition figures. The army would absorb some
insurgents from relatively moderate groups. Alawites and majority Sunnis
would both be represented.
Then,
as the Syrian analyst Ibrahim Hamidi put it in the Saudi-owned pan-Arab
newspaper Al Hayat, “the government and army will have the necessary
political legitimacy and sectarian representation to ‘unite against
terrorism.’ ”
That
scenario fits in with a plan that Iran put forward amid last week’s
flurry of meetings, calling for an immediate cease-fire, the formation
of a national unity government, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing
the rights of all Syria’s ethnic and religious groups, and
internationally supervised elections.
But how that would actually look would undoubtedly be hard to agree on.
As
the Jordanian newspaper al-Ghad concluded, with grudges “dug deep over
half a decade, with all the blood spilled and hatred that has been
spread,” ending conflict among entrenched armed groups will mean
“offering concessions and dealing in details, each one of which contains
a thousand devils!”
No comments:
Post a Comment