The Syrian problem cannot be confined to regional boundaries, because it has highlighted a number of global issues, above all the question that should be raised at multilateral meetings: “Is it legitimate to declare governments illegitimate?” It looks as though no one respects international law any longer.
Tensions in Syria are running higher than almost anywhere else in the world. Although the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan is the most feasible, and in fact the only, option, its six basic principles are not set in stone. New developments usually call for changes, but a plan is a plan only when its fundamental aspects remain intact. True, these fundamental aspects can be augmented or adjusted in any way by agreement between the parties concerned, including the Syrian government. But there are two inviolable requirements: “a sustained cessation of armed violence” and “a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition.”
Annan’s plan has not been implemented, and there are several explanations for this. Personally, I believe that Syria is not teetering on the brink of a civil war, but rather, is fully in its throes. Judging by the experience of other countries, there are no angels or demons in a civil war. I dealt with peacekeeping operations as Russia’s special envoy in the Balkans and believe that it takes not so much peacekeepers as political will on the part of the conflicting sides, and coordinated actions of the international community, to stop the violence. Unfortunately, there is none of this in Syria. The UN Security Council, which is responsible for peacekeeping operations, should begin by approving the goals, tasks and means to be provided to a UN mission in Syria, that is, the peacekeeping mandate. This typically takes a long time, so to consider the use of peacekeepers in the Syrian conflict would be premature.
There are vague prospects for a comprehensive political dialogue within Annan’s plan. A ceasefire, an end to the violence and political dialogue are all interconnected elements. Developments should be analyzed on the spot to judge the public mood, because fighting involves more than the army, the rebels and the terrorists. The undisguised interference of external forces – regional and otherwise – has become obvious, which explains the irreconcilable positions of the anti-Assad forces that are working towards the Libyan scenario. Taken together, this precludes the possibility of a political dialogue and the implementation of Annan’s plan.
Many Russian and foreign political analysts, and even such former officials as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, are warning about the danger of another stage of violence in Syria, which can be prevented only by starting a political dialogue. This brings us to the logical question: Whom should this dialogue be with? There is the internal and the external Syrian opposition, which accounts for the complex structure of relations in the country. For example, external assistance to the armed opposition groups can be stopped, but not all opposition is armed or is using military methods of fighting. Yet a political dialogue could be possible if military assistance to the opposition is stopped and the West folds its political umbrella.
The West insists that Russia must influence Bashar Assad’s government, but Russia says it has been doing this daily, using its long established ties with the Syrian leadership. Russia’s position on this issue is well known: it has been trying to convince the Syrian government to take a more realistic view of developments and their possible outcome.
But it is completely inappropriate for the requirements set to the opposition to differ dramatically in character from the demands made on Russia. Russia is being assured that it is the main player and that it alone can stop the violence and the fighting in the region. At the same time, its efforts are made ineffective by what some Western and local Arab countries are saying and doing. Fair play exists only in tennis, not in politics, yet Russia wants elements of fair play to be added to the complex Syrian equation. Only in this case can a solution to the Syrian problem be found.
Ultimately, the Syrian problem cannot be confined to regional boundaries, because it has highlighted a number of global issues, above all the question that should be raised at multilateral meetings: “Is it legitimate to declare governments illegitimate?” It looks as though no one respects international law any longer. If so, we should say this out loud and act in accordance with existing realities. The element of political hypocrisy is now larger than ever.
On the other hand, the Syrian issue should not add further discord to the relations between Russia and the West. Problems should be addressed not in the spirit of confrontation, as is currently being done, but in the spirit of dialogue -- even sharp dialogue -- between civilized partners.
