Originally published on the CGS blog on February 3, 2014.
The United Nations-League of Arab States Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has announced a break in the Geneva II negotiations until 10 February 2014, noting they have been “a modest beginning on which we can build.” It was expected that Geneva II would be long and difficult. Geneva I had been relatively easy since only the Russians and Americans were engaged and both had the “Yemen model” in mind: the president goes into a safe exile, a slightly broader transition government is formed, but no reforms though life is a bit better than before.
Geneva II was predicted to be more difficult as Syrians would participate in the discussion – including the government and some opposition factions. Over forty states attended the start, some because they were directly concerned, others to give encouragement. The official Syrian delegations met in the UN Palais des Nations but not always together. Other interested parties – uninvited opposition groups, Kurds, Lebanese – met in quiet restaurants and hotel rooms. Some Iranian diplomats left with their President to attend Davos, while others stayed to observe.
What is now possible to build on the modest beginning? What role can outside governments and non-governmental conflict-resolution organizations play? The distance among Syrians and the intensity of negative feelings was symbolized by rival Syrian groups demonstrating in the square just beyond the UN property. The “Place des Nations” belongs to the city of Geneva. While one needs a police permit to demonstrate legally, the permits are normally granted. There are often groups with signs and fliers. The police watch, but usually have little to do. There are rarely groups holding conflicting views at the same time as was seen during the Syrian negotiations. The police prevented violence, but they had to do more than just watch.
Although there was no formal agreement between the Syrian Government and the armed opposition, the one topic on which there might be an agreement was on temporary access of humanitarian relief to some conflict areas and internally-displaced people camps. Such humanitarian relief is urgently needed; a large number of people have left their homes unable to take supplies with them; certain towns and parts of cities are the scene of continued fighting. No-man-lands are unclear, and there are no official “safe havens”.
In some of my contacts with the Russian Foreign Ministry concerning the possibility of their offering their good offices to the Syrian Government for relief, I received the impression that the Russians are willing to make an effort along these lines. Aid to the city of Homs – the third most populated of Syria – has been mentioned. Aid to displaced-persons camps is more difficult as different, non-cooperating groups hold different segments of the roads.
At this stage, US or more generally Western government influence is slight both with the Syrian Government and with the most hard-line of the opposition. Thus it is basically the Russians who can take the lead. However, there are US-based and Western European relief organizations, and they may be able to play a logistic role and use US and Western European food and medical supplies
There is only a short time for private discussions to reach an agreement before the 10 February public restart. If an agreement can be reached by then so that the agreement could be announced at the start of the negotiations, it could help the more political aspects of the negotiations. In any case, humanitarian aid is needed to limit the current heavy suffering.
Thus we must use the influence we have in the next few days to push for an accord on relief supplies.
