The Guardian view on the UN talks on Syria: a waiting game while the country burns

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/17/guardian-view-united-nations-talks-on-syria

Version 0 of 1.

It may have escaped notice but peace talks about Syria are once again under way. The United Nations, which is organising and directing them from Geneva, has avoided the title Geneva III. That is understandable, given that the first two big and much heralded attempts to reach an agreement to end Syria’s civil war, now in its fifth year, were such failures. Two of the world’s most distinguished mediators, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and veteran Algerian envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, were unable to get the beginnings of a framework accord, or even to persuade the contending parties to actually discuss the issues face to face.

Both men resigned. Their successor, Staffan de Mistura, has adopted an approach that is both more modest and more inclusive. He wants a series of “separate consultations” with as many of the actors – the situation is too fragmented to speak of “sides” – as possible, including Iran. Some have not been invited, Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra being the most obvious. Others have turned down the invitation or accepted it only while warning they fear that talks may make matters worse.

The war’s resolution will almost certainly have to wait on some major shift in the balance of power

What is going on is the classic diplomatic exercise of keeping channels of communication open in a confused situation in the hope that, as and when it changes, there will be some expertise and engagement available if new opportunities arise. De Mistura’s tactics also represent a recognition that, if there were ever a time when the Syrian war could be tackled on its own, that time has passed. It was always part of the larger regional contest between Iran and the Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, a contest which in turn was deeply influenced by the difficult relationship between the United States and Iran, by the rise of jihadism, and by the standoff between the west and Russia.

Now all these dimensions are changing. Secretary of state John Kerry’s consultations with Vladimir Putin last week suggest a softening of US and Russian differences over Syria. Meanwhile, at Camp David, President Obama tried to allay the fears of Gulf states that Iran will exploit a nuclear agreement to become the region’s strongest power. It is indeed an open question whether Iran will become a satisfied power, interested in extricating itself from Syria and resting content with its enhanced influence in Iraq, or not. The US will both cooperate with Iran and oppose it, Obama has implied – cooperate in Iraq and parts of Syria, but oppose in other parts and in Yemen. It is a formula that must be very perplexing even to its authors. The new Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, meanwhile, has thrown down a gauntlet in Yemen, and is propping up the Sisi regime in Egypt financially while Egypt is choosing sides in Libya. The verdict on this new Saudi forward policy has yet to be reached.

It is a sad conclusion for suffering Syrians, but the war’s resolution will almost certainly have to wait on some major shift in the balance of power, or on a general recognition that the quest for further advantage is pointless. When and how that shift, or that recognition, will come is critical. We can only hope it will come sooner rather than later.