Geneva II: threatened by disputes between delegates

Getting all parties to the table at the second round of Syria peace talks, due to start on Wednesday, has been a major negotiation in itself. Russia and the US have been working on getting both the regime and the opposition on-side for over a year – and fundamental problems remain. Representatives of President Bashar Al-Assad say they will not attend talks simply to cede power, while rebel groups demand Assad’s resignation as a precondition. The UN, the US, and Russia have all been pushing for the talks – known as Geneva II – but the question of Iran’s involvement has remained unsettled. US officials have repeatedly spoken out against involving the country; UN representatives have said it is “necessary”. As the January date marches ever closer, the bloodshed has continued, and there have been disagreements over which rebel groups should attend – but there was no suggestion of cancelling the talks. After this monumental effort from all sides, it is difficult to believe that the peace conference has very nearly been derailed not by Assad or by the Syrian opposition, but by a diplomatic dispute between the US and the UN. This was a culmination of the disagreement over Iran’s involvement. The US has said it would be inappropriate for Iran to attend the talks, because of its direct military involvement in the conflict. It has demanded that Iran sign up to the demand for Assad’s resignation, agreed at the last round of talks at Geneva; the country says it will not meet preconditions for involvement. The UN, meanwhile, has long held the position that Iran – one of Assad’s staunchest allies – must be present at the negotiating table if there is to be any real hope of a settlement. On Monday 20th January, it was announced that after extensive discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister Javid Zarif, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was inviting Iran to take part at the Geneva conference. Ban said that Assad’s key regional ally “needs to be part of the solution to the Syrian crisis”. But soon after the announcement was made, the western-backed Syrian National Council (SNC) accused Iran of “invading” Syria and said that it would suspend its own participation if Tehran’s representatives were present. Monzer Akbik, the SNC’s chief of staff, said that inviting Iran was against promises that the group had received. Reportedly, officials from the US and the UN spent Sunday in intense consultations; after his discussions with Zarif, Ban felt that there were enough private “positive assurances” from Iran to invite them to the conference. But, as the BBC’s Kim Ghattas puts it: “The US wants Iran’s private commitment to be made public and explicit first and was caught off guard by the UN invitation. Iran has not done so.” This was certainly the impression given by Samantha Power, America’s envoy to the UN, who said that Iran had not shown willing to “explicitly and publicly” back a transition process. “That is a minimum requirement for participation in this peace process,” she said. Iran maintains that it will not agree to any preconditions for its involvement. After Tehran said it did not support the June 2012 political transition deal that is the basis for the next round of talks, Ban withdrew the invitation. “Iran, despite assurances provided orally to the secretary general, has made a disappointing public statement,” his spokesman told reporters. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the decision. The incident is a stumbling block for a conference that has taken over a year to organise. But it also points to deeper divisions. Putting aside broader questions of tensions and diplomatic relations between the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, the key area of disagreement remained political transition: whether it should take place, and how that might happen. Hammering out the shape of political transition is theoretically the basis for talks, but fundamental disagreement remains on how that might happen. The SNC is adamant that any transition arrangement must not involve Assad. Meanwhile, Assad has said that the possibility of the SNC holding any ministerial positions is “totally unrealistic”. More broadly, the Syrian regime wants to focus attention on terrorism and the presence of extremist organisations among the ranks of the rebels. This is a subject that finds a willing ear among international powers, who share concerns about Syria becoming the centre of global extremism: it was recently reported that western security officials have made visits to Damascus to discuss terrorism, despite officially backing the rebels. Of course, the SNC and other representative groups want to keep the focus on political transition and ousting Assad – something which moderate rebels are well aware is hindered by the actions of extremist groups. Ultimately, as this week’s furore shows, getting all parties to the negotiating table is just the first step. Diplomacy involves compromise and unpalatable choices; the question is whether the parties present at Geneva – from the Syrian parties to the international powers – are willing to make them.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.