SO many rounds of Syrian peace talks have failed that it is difficult to be too optimistic about next week’s powwow at Geneva coming up with a solution to a six-year-long conflict that has led to a casualty toll estimated at half a million. The row over diplomatic phraseology alone gives an idea of the negotiators’ state of mind and makes one wonder what chances more substantive issues have of being tackled in a spirit of accommodation for the larger good of the Syrian people. On Friday, the spokesperson for UN envoy Staffan de Mistura had to send an email to modify an earlier statement to make clear that the UN had dropped the word ‘political transition’ as a prelude to the intra-Syria talks scheduled to begin in Geneva on Thursday. For government negotiators, ‘political transition’ is a veiled phrase implying President Bashar al-Assad’s ouster. The UN spokeswoman affirmed that the talks would, instead, be held within the framework of Security Council Resolution 2254, which supports a Syria-led political process with a view to ensuring “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within six months and drafting a new constitution. Passed in December 2015, the resolution saw little progress over the next year.

The Geneva meeting scheduled for Feb 23 will run parallel to the talks jointly sponsored by Iran, Russia and Turkey in Astana. But when the negotiators met last time in the Kazakh capital on Thursday both sides were so inflexible that that even a communiqué could not be issued. The sponsors themselves are at odds. Russia and Iran support the Syrian regime, while Turkey wants President Assad to go. The truth is the Syrian president expects the opposition to listen to him because his military victories with Russian and Iranian help have dramatically changed the picture in his favour; the opposition, however, seems in no mood to show flexibility. Without sincerity of purpose, talks held anywhere are unlikely to end the Syrian people’s trauma in the near future.

Published in Dawn February 19th, 2017