UN envoy Brahimi was right to apologise to the Syrians

The second round of peace talks on Syria has drawn to a close, with little evidence of any progress. The talks at Geneva were more than a year in the making – even getting representatives of the Syrian government and of the rebels to sit in the same room was an achievement – but took just weeks to fail.

Given the drastically opposing starting positions of each side, it is hardly surprising that the deadlock has not been lifted. The rebels want the resignation of President Bashar Al-Assad as a minimum; the Syrian government refuses to discuss his leadership. Amid this impasse, the killing continues. According to activists, more than 5,792 people have been killed since the Geneva II talks began on 22 January.

The UN’s mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, apologised to the Syrian people: “The little that has been achieved in Homs, gave them even more hope that maybe this is the beginning of the coming out of this horrible crisis they are in. I apologise to them that on these two rounds we have not helped them very much.”

Already, recriminations have started. Speaking to journalists, Brahimi said that talks had ended on Saturday, with the Syrian government refusing to discuss how to create a transitional government. The opposition and its western backers both insist that this is the only way forward. It has become clear that it was not even discussed. For its part, Assad’s regime wanted to focus on “terrorism”, by which they mean all armed opposition. Following the breakdown of talks, Syria’s foreign minister accused the US of creating a “negative climate” for dialogue. British Foreign Secretary William Hague blamed the Syrian government directly for the failure of talks, although, he added, “This cannot be the end of the road.”

One of the few agreements that was reached was that a third round of talks would be necessary, although a date for them has not been set.

Is there any cause for optimism? The death toll is rising, fighting is intensifying, the numbers of refugees are ever growing and, viewed negatively, talks have been suspended indefinitely. Writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Steele argues that the outcome of the talks was not entirely bleak: “Brahimi seems to have achieved a consensus that there are two key issues. One is to achieve local ceasefires, leading gradually to a countrywide halt in fighting. The other is to form a transitional government.” While these issues were not actually dealt with, Steele argues, they could lay the foundation for future discussions.

If there is to be any hope of peace talks resuming productively, the public blame game will not help. The key international players – Russia and the US – should stop competing with each other and focus on the common goals. Regional powers such as Iran should be included in the diplomatic process if there is to be any hope of pressurising the government into making concessions. Yet all of this remains distant: it took well over a year to get all parties to the table for this round of talks. There will have to be significant developments behind the scenes for the respective parties to gather once again.

In the meantime, the outlook on the ground is not good. Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Lebanon’s Hezbollah Shia militia, has pledged that his forces will continue to fight alongside Assad’s troops until the “takfiris” (meaning extremist Sunnis) are defeated. “We will remain where we should be, our policy hasn’t changed,” he said, warning that Syria could turn into “Afghanistan after the Soviet exit”.

It is true that extremist groups do make up a portion of the opposition. The coalition of Syrian opposition groups in exile, which took part in Geneva II, has struggled to distance itself from these terrorist organisations, which have grown in size and influence, and the moderate rebels remain splintered. As talks failed, it was announced that the Free Syrian Army, the main moderate force, was appointing a new army chief. Coming after a year in which the FSA has lost influence to more hard line, better-funded rebel groups, this is yet another sign of disarray.

The Geneva talks led to a ceasefire in the besieged city of Homs, which enabled more than 1,300 people to be evacuated. It has also meant that UN agencies and other organisations have been able to deliver aid. This was a significant move for the people of this area, but it has not improved access to other warzones in the country, with up to 3 million people still in need of humanitarian aid.

With no sign of either side backing down on the battlefield, and no date set for further talks, it seems that Brahimi was right to apologise to the Syrian people.

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