Syrian state ‘must be made sustainable by a political agreement that can stand’

The world cannot afford to waste time over ending the war in Syria.

When US President Barack Obama leaves the White House in January, peacemaking could come to an abrupt halt.

His successor, motivated by the desire to curb Russian and Iranian involvement, is likely to opt for military escalation rather than a cessation of hostilities and negotiations.

So far all sides to the conflict have opted for trying to gain political advantage from military developments, but this is as dangerous as wasting time by haggling.

The third round of intra-Syrian talks in Geneva provides the means for sustaining the ceasefire imposed on February 27, winding down the conflict and reaching a deal over Syria’s future governance.

However, the government and the Saudi-sponsored opposition continued to be deadlocked over the future of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The government insists he must stay on and oversee the formation of a “national unity” government composed of loyalists, opposition figures and independents, amendments to the constitution and fresh elections.

The Riyadh-formed High Negotiations Committee (HNC) has demanded Assad’s removal as soon as possible and the creation of a transition authority with full power, which will draft a new constitution and conduct elections for parliament and president.

Syrians consulted in Damascus said, however, that “the Russians and Americans will decide” what happens on this fundamental issue.

A Syrian source with access to both sides as well as Washington and Moscow told this correspondent: “They have agreed that Assad will go but not when.”

Unfortunately, the lack of a time frame is creating instability and uncertainty.

Furthermore, the source said the US and Russia have “agreed that 70 per cent of the regime will remain” in place, presumably to maintain the institutions of state which are closely identified with the regime.

The source said the HNC has a number of plans, including some provided by the US, to provide for the emergence of a new regime but, he added, the HNC has “no strategy” to secure their adoption.

The government, he stated, has a strategy and able negotiators but has no intention of yielding to demands that Assad step down.

Having survived five years of warfare, the government remains totally committed to Assad’s rule.

Another Syrian commentator observed that HNC — which is made up of multiple political factions and militia leaders — is “embarrassingly unqualified” to wrest concessions from the government.

This is certain to be case as well when the time comes to fill ministerial posts and put forward candidates for parliament and the presidency.

This, perhaps, is the reason why the US has not pressed Russia to agree on a date for Assad to depart.

The US, in particular, has made disastrous decisions about effecting regime change in recent years.

Iraqi president Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator who crushed his antagonists, but he ruled a united Iraq where the majority of Iraqis did not feel themselves divided by sect or ethnicity.

The armed forces were able to defend Iraq against Iran during the 1980-88 war and the country’s civil service ran the country reasonably well.

Before the 1991 US war on Iraq and the imposition of punitive sanctions, 90 per cent of Iraqis had access to healthcare and the school enrolment rate was 100 per cent. The literacy level in the 6-12 age group was 90 per cent.

The health and educational infrastructure was destroyed by the 1991 and 2003 wars, while the army and civil service were gutted during the US occupation, and the ruling Baath Party was banned.

The US installed in power pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists with a sectarian agenda. By clinging to power and their agenda, the Shiite sectarians have been responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda and Daesh.

The last thing this region needs is further destruction of Syria’s battered health and educational structures and the dissolution of the civil service.

Although the UN has made a plan for post-war reconstruction in Syria, it is not clear whether at political level the powers-that-be will ensure that a new constitution will be secular, law will be secular and the regime will follow a secular agenda.

While component of the HNC signed a declaration calling for the establishment of a “civil” regime in Syria, it must be noted that the Muslim Brotherhood has an influential role in the Syrian National Coalition, the political wing of the HNC, while the majority of military factions represented in the HNC are salafist taqfiris which advocate the transformation of Syria into a Sunni “Islamic state”.

The worst possible outcome of the Syrian war would be the installation of a Sunni fundamentalist regime with a sectarian agenda, which would be seen by some as a counterweight to the Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iraq.

This would ineluctably lead to the radicalisation of Syria’s poorly educated and alienated youth — in line with the pattern set by Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Taliban is growing increasingly powerful and Libya where Daesh and other taqfiri groups dominate.

Anas Jaudeh, who heads the Syrian Nation Building Movement, told this correspondent Syria’s future will be shaped by the Geneva talks.

“The documents the sides present will serve as a precedent to be built on later,” he said.

He argued that Syria must avoid the Lebanese model of sectarian power sharing and must “issue a constitutional declaration now, defining freedoms, identity and values, and listing the main things to be amended in the current constitution”.

He held that Syria should stick with a presidential system, but the president’s powers should be defined and there should be a balance among the president, parliament and the judiciary.

“The shape of the state is the most important thing. It must be made sustainable by a political agreement that can stand.... The regime cannot hand over to the Riyadh opposition because this would produce fragmentation. We need a gradual transition. We can’t bring untested people... we must wait to hold elections.... People must believe in the constitution.”

“We need a clear, dignified solution or we will have a generation who will hate everyone [in power] in Syria,” he concluded.