In reading the New York Times yesterday, it struck me that following the news about Syria is becoming almost unbearably frustrating. More and more are dying, and there still doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. Instead, we are treated to an endless back-and-forth between opposition figures, stubborn politicians and foreign diplomats about the validity of each side’s respective goals and interests, and rumors about the imminence of one or the other’s surrender. Most recently, analysts have been ruminating on the possibility of Syria becoming more a regional than a civil conflict. It’s enough to make your head explode (or at least to make you shut your laptop in disgust and abject hopelessness). But the immensely complex nature of the mess into which Syria has degenerated may be masking the true simplicity of the solution.
First of all, any speculation that Syria is turning into anything more than a civil conflict (albeit one where regional interests are deeply concerned) is an exaggeration. While recent events, namely the Israeli airstrike near Damascus (which targeted either a scientific research center or a Hezbollah weapons transport convoy, depending on whom you want to believe) and the subsequent Iranian temper tantrum may indicate that this conflict is becoming an international one, this just doesn’t check out. The airstrike wasn’t a sign that the Israelis are involving themselves in Syria; they have no reason to do so. If you haven’t noticed, neither the US nor any of its allies are rushing to order a direct military intervention in Syria, because it simply doesn’t serve their national interests. Rather, the airstrike was just the latest act in the exhausting farce of the decades-long war between Hezbollah and Israel. And anyone with a basic understanding of realpolitik knows that neither Iran nor Syria is going to marshal the forces of Islam against the “Zionist entity” (read: Israel) in response. It’s all just rhetoric, about as believable as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s expressed wish to become the first Iranian monkey man sent into space.
In other words, this conflict is just as civil as it ever was, and it won’t be ended by a mass Israeli invasion or an Iranian intervention. And so we return to the ever-present question: what is to be done? Powerful states have taken sides, the international community can’t form any coherent response, and the opposition is more fragmented than ever. Though I personally have supported intervention (first military, then humanitarian as the conflict evolved) in Syria in the past, I have come to the realization that as simple as it may sound, the answer lies in the art of compromise.
The Middle East has never been known for peaceful, sustainable negotiations (it’s one of the things that makes it so appealing to those of us interested in a career in mediation). But it seems that in the past few weeks, politicians and opposition figures alike have found it harder than ever to facilitate political dialogue and produce compromises on important issues. Take Egypt, for example. Following the series of violent demonstrations on the second anniversary of the fall of the Mubarak regime last month, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi called for a national dialogue with the opposition. However, the foremost opposing party, the National Salvation Front, refused to participate in talks with Morsi’s administration. They believed the gesture was a power play, intended to make him appear willing to compromise, rather than a sincere willingness to compromise. The dialogue didn’t happen, and the violence continued until the opposition hastily called for talks of their own a few days later… and then only after the head of the Egyptian armed forces threatened everyone with a military coup.
And days later, the back-and-forth over the talks still hasn’t yielded any results, because of the opposition’s unwillingness to compromise. In reality, figures in the NSF like Mohamed el-Baradei only want negotiations intended to fulfill their own particular demands, namely a unity government and a constitutional amendment. Whether the opposition likes it or not, the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected. They currently hold power in Egypt, and a unity government that hands some of that power back to rival coalitions is not a promise Morsi is going to make on a whim, let alone before the talks commence. It could be far more productive in the long run for the key opposition forces to enter into bilateral talks now (even if they distrust Morsi’s motives) than it has been to stand their ground.
And Egypt isn’t the only country that’s recently been dipping a toe into (and out of, and back into) the tempestuous pool of negotiation. Where the possibility for a political solution to civil discord becomes even more urgent is in (you guessed it) Syria, where last week the head of opposition forces made a surprise announcement to consider talks with the Assad regime. Sheikh Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib offered to speak with government representatives in exchange for the return of the 160,000 political prisoners allegedly held by the regime and the reissue of the expired passports of Syrians stuck abroad. This proposal represents a big development in the ideology of the opposition’s leadership, which until now has insisted that Assad’s resignation is a precondition to any political negotiations. But Assad has, predictably, ignored the request for dialogue. The deadline imposed by al-Khatib for his response has expired, and violent clashes have begun once more in Damascus.
The point of all this is that dialogue is key. In Egypt, where the situation between the government and protestors (while unstable) is nowhere near the fever pitch of Syria, the possibility for political talks is still on the table. In fact, it is now the responsibility of opposition factions to recognize the value of compromise and sit down with representatives from Morsi’s government. But in Syria, where the death toll is mounting daily and Assad has not yet broached the prospect of a political solution, more direct measures are needed.
I am speaking, as ever, of foreign support. The US has already declared its approval of the terms proposed by al-Khatib regarding potential talks. What remains is for Russia, currently blustering about the Israeli violation of Syria’s sovereignty, to grow a pair and apply pressure to their ally, Assad, to respond to the call for dialogue. The time has passed for the UN Security Council to intervene militarily; to do so now would only cause more bloodshed. But the potential remains for the UNSC to work together and use their power to promote a practical, political solution (in whichever form it may take). The Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and the League of Arab States on the Syrian crisis (try saying that ten times fast), Lakhdar Brahimi, put it best when he declared last week, “the Security Council simply cannot continue to say ‘we are [in] disagreement, therefore, let’s wait for better times’. I think they have got to grapple with this problem now.”