As the war in Syria enters in its fifth year with disastrous consequences for all involved, the US has finally come to the realisation that its insistence on the Assad regime's ouster is useless, if not counterproductive. In a recent interview, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "there is no military solution. There is only a political solution" and that "we have to negotiate in the end." The US and its regional allies, it may be recalled, had tried the first solution soon after a pro-democracy uprising began in March 2011, turning the political movement into a bloody civil war. But things did not work out according to plan. Opposition fighters were soon dominated by religious extremists, giving second thoughts to the rebels' Western sponsors. Hence back in 2012 the US and the regime's ally, Russia, tried to mediate a political settlement through Geneva1 process. At the time, negotiations did not go anywhere because the US wouldn't give up its demand that President Assad stand down.
The Syrian people in the meanwhile have undergone immense suffering. More than 215,000 persons have been killed, nearly a third of them civilians, including more than 10,000 children. Half of the population has been uprooted from homes and livelihoods. Millions have taken refuge in neighbouring countries. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, has described the situation as "the biggest humanitarian emergency of our era". No wonder, Syrian economy, say experts, has been set back by 30 years. 60 percent of the population is now living in poverty. The outside powers, of course, do not act out of humanitarian concerns but interests. What has urged a rethink in US' policy is the situation on the ground.
As it is, the Assad government has achieved some significant military successes. But more important and worrisome is the rise of IS, which has occupied large swathes of the country establishing its capital in the Syrian city of Raqqa, prompting US-led coalition to launch airstrikes inside Syria. From Washington's perspective, therefore, it is better to deal with a known devil, than to let the country descend into chaos, which would benefit the IS. Although Kerry said that President Assad needs to be pressured to make it clear to him that he needs to change his calculation about negotiating, Assad does not need to do much head-scratching in this regard. He, of course, is aware of US's concerns. The diplomats may still want to deny any shift in policy, as has a State Department spokesperson. But CIA Director John Brennan left no doubt about the change when he said the other day "none of us, Russia, the United Sates, coalition, and regional states, want to see a collapse of the government and political institutions in Damascus ... the last thing we want to do is allow them [IS] to march into Damascus." That and Kerry's assertions raise the hope negotiations will take place sometime soon, leading to a peaceful solution of the four-year conflict. The hapless people of Syria need durable peace, and an agreement that in due course paves the way for internationally-supervised elections.
Comments
Comments are closed.