The need for a political transition in Syria is what makes this issue so important for regional security, including Russia’s national security. The duration of the deadly war in Syria is a direct consequence of the crisis of regional leadership and the entire system of international relations. The discrepancy between UN instruments and the reality is undeniable.
The year 2013 ended to the accompaniment of endless praise and self-congratulation for Russia’s policy in the Middle East. Russia has indeed made a triumphant return to a region that seemed lost forever. The skill of our diplomats is truly impressive, but the euphoria seems out of place considering that just a year ago everyone said that Russia had completely lost the Middle East by failing to get on the “right side of history” in time. And while the “right side of history” is hard to discern at times, today’s excessive exuberance seems no less inappropriate as yesterday’s excessive regret. The events of 2013 confirmed that the situation in the region remains unstable and fairly unpredictable, and there is no need to rush.
Regrettably, the big achievements of Russian diplomacy in 2013 are short-term and largely the result of opponents’ missteps. They did little to promote Russia’s core interests in the region, such as national security, which is most threatened by the war in Syria. Despite all the difficulties and disagreements between partners, Russia should focus its efforts on organizing the Geneva II conference.
Yet, progress in bringing the war to a close is extremely important for Syria, Russia and the entire world. For Russia the importance lies in the recent attacks in Volgograd and the terrorist threat. For Syria, it is the hundreds of thousands dead, the millions of refugees and the disappearance of Christianity from the Middle East. For the world, Syria represents a choice between a new world order and global chaos.
Regardless of when the conference is held and how it proceeds, the persistent efforts to organize it are the first steps on the road to peace. They are laying the groundwork for talks and diplomatic mediation in Syria. Probably for the first time since the bloodshed began, dialogue is based on concrete proposals rather than the charges of war crimes and hypocrisy that were endlessly exchanged by the West, Russia and regional players. This dialogue is allowing the parties to separate the wheat from the chaff and to eventually change the format of the confrontation. After the conference, should it take place, the war will be waged not between Bashar al-Assad and his opponents but between those in favor of an inclusive Syrian society and their enemies.
This would be a real victory, and would strengthen the forces that are interested in stopping the bloodshed and preserving nationhood in the region.
It is important to realize that specific features of nationhood are of secondary importance. Considering the scale of the tragedy and the intense hatred between different factions, it is doubtful that the al-Assad regime or Syria as a unified country will continue to exist. However, every leader has to go eventually, while states, their borders and names can change. This should not trouble us. Russia will accept any option (unitary state, federation, confederation or simply several independent states) provided there is a stable political transition and all groups in Syria are free to live in peace – not only its diverse ethnic and religious groups (Sunni, Alawi, Christians, Kurds, to name a few) but also atheists whose existence is not usually admitted.
The need for a political transition in Syria is what makes this issue so important for regional security, including Russia’s national security. The duration of the deadly war in Syria is a direct consequence of the crisis of regional leadership and the entire system of international relations. No major external actor (the United States, the European Union, Russia or China) is ready to assume a clear leadership position in the region, and there are too many local actors vying for leadership without obvious success (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, perhaps to be joined in the future by Egypt, and even Israel with its unique position in the region). Meanwhile, the discrepancy between UN instruments and the reality is undeniable.
Two opposing approaches to settling conflicts and the geopolitical arrangement have dominated for a long time. The first, rooted in national sovereignty, implies non-interference, while the other, based on the idea of human rights, necessitates humanitarian intervention. Both have proved untenable.
Humanitarian interventions are dangerous because the rules governing them are not clear, responsibility for the transition period can erode, and interventionists may pursue their own interests. Non-interference is dangerous because domestic conflicts may get out of control and spill out into other countries.
Syria showed that neither of these approaches works. The Geneva II conference – and even just the process of preparing for it – could become the foundation for the gradual emergence of a new world order where the responsibility to protect will be balanced by the need to respect sovereignty, and where cooperation between different power centers (both global and regional) will smooth political transitions and promote regional security.
