When it rains

When it rains, it pours, or so it seems with diplomatic initiatives.  Yesterday it was the six-month Iran nuclear deal.  Today it is the United Nations announcement of a date for Syria peace talks:  January 22, in Geneva.

Neither one faces easy implementation, but the Syria peace talks are the dicier proposition.  A lot of things are still unclear, including who is invited and how they will be represented.  But Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was at pains to be clear about the purpose:

“full implementation of the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012,” including the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers, including over military and security entities.

This is word for word what the Syrian Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (Etilaf) requires.

It is a tall order for Bashar al Asad, as it implies that the meeting aims to remove him from power, if not from Syria.  Friends in Etilaf doubt the regime will show up for a meeting with this purpose.  I think it more likely it will, but with people who cannot make serious commitments for Bashar al Asad, whatever their nominal titles.  It is very unlikely that a one-day meeting is going to move us more than a millimeter closer to a negotiated settlement in Syria.  I’ll be delighted if it does that much.

How, you should ask, are the two news items related?  Did the nuclear deal pave the way for the Syria talks?  Or vice versa, did some sort of unannounced side deal on Syria pave the way for the nuclear deal?  Or are these two developments unrelated?

There are certainly some who have hoped that a nuclear deal would open the door to a broader rapprochement with Iran.  That’s possible, but unlikely in such a short timeframe. Syria is no less vital to Iran and its “resistance axis” (which also includes Hizbollah and Hamas) today than it was before the nuclear agreement was reached.

It is far more likely that Iran and Russia, the Asad regime’s key allies, are hoping to find the Americans pliable on Syria and even willing to accept half a loaf now that they’ve had their top priority at least temporarily met.  The Americans and their European partners (including Turkey) are worried about the rampant proliferation of extremists in Syria, reliant on Bashar al Asad to complete implementation of the chemical weapons agreement, and aware that things are going badly for the opposition military forces.  It is not a good moment from Etilaf’s perspective to be negotiating an end to the regime.

There is, however, virtue in talking, if the UN can manage to get both the regime and opposition to Geneva with credible delegations.  If, as I expect, the regime is nowhere near ready for Bashar al Asad to step aside, the obvious subject to discuss is the protection of civilians.  The international norm against military attacks on civilian populations is at least as important as the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.  It is violated in Syria on a daily basis.

The regime’s use of artillery, aircraft and missiles against civilian population centers should be ended.  Moscow and Tehran have the leverage to make this happen.  Without their financing and weapons supplies the regime wouldn’t last a month.  Even if the Geneva meeting is unable to achieve its avowed purpose of creating a transitional government, it would be doing something worthwhile if it provides an opportunity for the Americans and Europeans to get Russia and Iran to pressure Asad to end attacks on civilians.

The Geneva meeting might also serve a useful purpose if it fails altogether, forcing the Americans to rethink strategy in Syria (as Fred Hof suggests).  But if the Americans do nothing different after such a failure, the damage will be to the credibility of Etilaf and any other groups that go to Geneva.  When it rains, it pours, especially on the heads of those who aren’t well supplied with protection.