Astana talks expose limits of what Russia, Turkey and Iran can achieve

Sunday 29/01/2017
Mohammed Alloush, head of Syrian opposition delegation

Astana - Peace talks between the Syr­ian government and oppo­sition in Kazakhstan were an achievement for their international sponsors but exposed the limits of what Russia, Turkey and Iran can achieve in their efforts to resolve the 6-year-old war.
It was the first time in nine months the two sides had come to­gether, albeit briefly and unhappily, and the first time that Moscow, An­kara and Tehran had presided over such talks, with the United States only present as an observer.
The fact that the talks happened at all was a diplomatic coup that un­derlined the three countries’ grow­ing Middle East clout and Washing­ton’s diminished influence at a time when Donald Trump is settling into the presidency.
Alexander Lavrentiev, the head of the Russian delegation, hailed the talks in the Kazakhstan capital Astana as the “birth” of a new nego­tiating format and there were hopes that UN-brokered talks in Geneva in February were now more likely to take place.
At the end of two chaotic days, Moscow, Ankara and Tehran backed a shaky December 30th truce be­tween Syria’s warring parties and agreed to monitor its compliance.
Yet negotiations did not go as planned, showing that the three would-be Syria conflict brokers, in their different ways, all have cred­ibility problems. This suggests they may have to involve Washington and Gulf countries more fully if they are to have any chance of brokering a final deal.
That could be difficult as the talks spotlighted sharp differences be­tween Moscow and Tehran over the participation of the United States.
State media in Iran cited Iranian officials as saying any US involve­ment was unacceptable. Lavrentiev said Moscow would welcome Wash­ington joining the process.
“They (the Russians) can now see how difficult their partners are,” said one Western diplomat.
In previous rounds of UN talks in Geneva, Moscow was not able to call the shots in the way it could in Kazakhstan, the diplomat said, because the United States and the West diluted its role. This time, Moscow had a taste of what it is like to be in the hot seat.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had previously lamented the failure of UN-backed talks in Ge­neva, calling them “fruitless sitting around”. Lavrentiev put a positive gloss on the Kazakh talks but did not hide the diplomatic difficulties ei­ther, complaining about how tough the discussions were.
Western envoys, who turned up informally to observe develop­ments from the corridors of the ho­tel, mingled with reporters to try to ascertain what the purpose of the meeting was. There was much spec­ulation about whether Russia want­ed a follow-up meeting that would go into the details of what was in the end a vague final communiqué.
“Frankly, we’re baffled. Why is Russia doing this now? What has changed for them that they want to disengage militarily and engage po­litically?” asked one diplomat.
Western envoys congregated in the hotel lobby could be heard debating whether to try the local horsemeat specialities in the hotel’s Irish pub, where clouds of cigarette smoke filled the air.
At one point, on the evening of January 23rd, the Kazakh Foreign Ministry was searching for guides willing to show the rebels around local shopping malls after appar­ently being told that the opposition wanted to pick up some bargains.
Back at the talks, rebels and West­ern diplomats questioned the role of Iran and its allies.
“The Russians have moved from a stage of being a party in the fighting and are now exerting efforts to be­come a guarantor. They are finding a lot of obstacles from (Lebanon’s Shia) Hezbollah forces, Iran and the regime,” said Mohammed Alloush, the head of the Syrian opposition delegation.
Western diplomats said they too saw Iran as one of the main obstacles to progress with one saying Tehran’s commitment to the ceasefire and a political transition was uncertain.
Moscow said it had given the re­bels the draft of a new constitution, drawn up by Russian specialists, to speed agreement on a political tran­sition. It was unclear however what the document said or what the re­bels thought of it.
The talks yielded a joint commu­niqué from Russia, Turkey and Iran that pledged to create a monitoring mechanism to police Syria’s patchy ceasefire but the rebels did not en­dorse it.
Instead, they submitted a sepa­rate proposal on the ceasefire and questioned Iran’s legitimacy as a broker at a time when they said Iranian militias were breaching the ceasefire.
The communiqué legitimised Iran’s “bloodletting” in Syria, com­plained Alloush, and did not ad­dress the role of Shia militias fight­ing the rebels.
Nor did the rebels, who for the first time were represented by mili­tary rather than just political figures, show any signs of watering down their demand that Syrian President Bashar Assad step down as soon as possible, something Damascus will not accept.
For some of them, Russia’s broker status sat awkwardly.
“We are not opposed to Russia be­cause it is Russia but we had a prob­lem when its jets were participating with the regime in killing our peo­ple,” said Osama Abu Zaid, an oppo­sition spokesman. “If this role ends then we’ll have no problem.”
The Syrian government delega­tion had its own issues with the talks’ sponsors, questioning Tur­key’s legitimacy as a broker at a time when it said Ankara was violating its sovereignty via an extended armed incursion into northern Syria.
Neither delegation included sen­ior figures and Washington was only represented in an observer capacity by its local ambassador. Apart from one official from the United Arab Emirates present informally, Arab envoys were absent.
In a major setback, Moscow failed to get the two sides to negotiate face-to-face despite Lavrentiev say­ing beforehand that face-to-face talks were “the main goal”.
The rebels balked at that, saying they could not sit down with peo­ple responsible for so much blood­shed. Instead, Moscow had to make do with indirect talks with the two delegations relaying messages via intermediaries.
Some diplomats said it was the opposition that had refused but oth­ers said there were fears that Bashar Jaafari, the head of the government delegation, who has a reputation for being curt, would add “vinegar to the water”, giving indirect talks a better chance of success.
There was quarrelling about the format and the agenda from the outset. The opposition demanded talks focus solely on a ceasefire that should require Iranian-backed mi­litias to quit Syria but the govern­ment, emboldened by the fact the talks were being held under the co-sponsorship of its staunch ally Rus­sia and with the balance of power turning in its favour on the ground, said there was a chance to push for reconciliation with Assad remaining in power, a red line for the rebels.
Opening statements laid bare those divisions.
Alloush, the head of the rebel del­egation, called the Syrian govern­ment “a bloody despotic regime”, while Jaafari, head of the govern­ment delegation, accused opposi­tion negotiators of defending “war crimes” and of being rude and un­professional.
Jaafari made clear too that a gov­ernment offensive against Wadi Barada, which supplies most of the water for Damascus, would con­tinue even though rebels see it as a truce violation.
“As long as 7 million people in Da­mascus remain deprived of water, it will continue,” said Jaafari.
Andrey Kortunov, director-gen­eral of the Russian International Af­fairs Council, a Moscow-based for­eign policy think-tank close to the Russian Foreign Ministry, said the talks had been “better than nothing but there is no silver bullet”. (Reuters)