It has been more than five years since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis. Despite the current deadlock, it is widely recognized that the Syrian crisis should be resolved as soon as possible via political channels. However, it is one thing to be aware of the necessity, but quite another to make it happen. The US would always like to blame Bashar al-Assad and other relevant parties as the obstacle, but actually the US itself could do much more to achieve a political solution of the crisis.
Any crisis must ultimately be resolved via negotiations, even when it involves military conflicts and confrontations. Political negotiation is a process for relevant parties to bargain for their share of the power. Though many variables could produce impact on the distribution of political power, yet the most important should be the comparison of strengths of the parties on the ground. Or to put it another way, those who are stronger on the battlefields will proportionately take the bigger share of the “cake” of the political power.
The above-mentioned realists’ approach is much more favored in Western than in non-Western academic communities. Syria’s case might fit well in this approach, and political resolution of the crisis should be smooth so long as parties accept this approach in the distribution of power. But unfortunately, the opposition seems not to be ready to accept a solution based on the facts on the ground. This unpreparedness should explain the deadlock of the political process of Syrian issue. On the one hand, the opposition is not capable to topple Assad’s regime by military means, but on the other hand, they still want the political transition without Assad.
Albeit complex, the Syrian crisis actually involves conflicts at three levels. It is first about the rebel of the opposition against the government headed by Assad. Second, about competition for regional influence between Saudi Arabia and Iran at regional level. While Saudi Arabia openly stands for the Syrian opposition, Iran — together with Lebanese Hizbollah, is supporting Assad’s government. Third, it is about geopolitical competition between the U.S. and Russia. While the US openly insists that Assad should leave, Russia stands by Assad.
Though the opposition, which has its headquarters in Istanbul, would always claim that Assad should go, it has never had the capability to topple the regime by military means. Nor has the opposition proved itself as a unified political and military group.
Its major ally Saudi Arabia also has failed to provide effective support. In contrast, Assad’s major ally Iran has professional military officers placed in Syrian battlefields, has strong influence on Lebanese Hizbollah, which has been fighting side by side with Assad’s regime, and has also provided assistance from food and oil to arms to the regime.
The US and the West in general command many more strategic resources than Russia. But what the US and the West can invest in Syria in much limited, while Russia is ready to provide a much bigger proportion of its total strategic resources in Syria. Russia regards Syria as crucial to maintain its geostrategic interests in its neighboring region, and a major ally, which it can rely on to play its role in the region.
All in all, the opposition together with its regional allies and extra-regional allies do not have the capability to overthrow the Assad regime by military means on the ground. Actually Syrian government forces have been in an advantageous position all through the last two years. On the other hand, the opposition and its supporters still hold the objective of toppling Assad’s government. Their unwillingness to accept the facts on the ground has greatly attributed to the deadlock of the political solution of the crisis.
The opposition has been claiming Assad’s government as having lost legitimacy, while the government has been labeling the opposition as terrorists. These exchanges of accusations actually cannot solve the problem at all.
It is least likely that Assad will keep all the power he had had before the outbreak of the crisis in Syria’s future political structure. Throughout the crisis, the opposition has sought more power and strength as well. Without tolerance and forgiveness, there will never be peace.
But it is equally unlikely that Assad will step down as requested by the opposition. In any event, Assad has not lost out. How could a party still having advantages on the battlefield give up willingly its position?
Syria has paid a high price for the crisis, and more blood will be shed as the crisis goes on. The crisis also has resulted in other very serious consequences in the region and in the neighborhood as well. The Middle East has been further divided and further fragmented. The refugee problem has caused serious economic, social and political crisis in Europe. Meanwhile, division on the Syrian issue has also undermined global efforts combating ISIS, which is one of the major reasons ISIS was able to take strongholds in Syria.
To end the crisis as soon as possible should be the top priority of relevant internal, regional and extra-regional parties. The final solution will depend primarily on Assad’s government and the opposition, and subsequently on two major regional powers to take reasonable and flexible positions. But major external actors can still play a bigger role in pushing forward Syrian peace process.
China has long been a low-profile mediator in the region. Regarding the Syrian issue, China has been keeping contact with both Assad’s government and the opposition, and has been pushing for dialogue and reconciliation between the two.
The US, however, has been one party of Syrian internal conflicts with the pretext of standing on the right side of history. But the international community has reasons to expect the US to play more constructive role in Syrian issue.
John Kerry claimed that the US wants Assad to leave but not at the immediate moment. It should be appreciated since this position signifies that the US is changing its policy toward the Syrian crisis. But that is certainly not enough. The US should also push its major allies including the Syrian opposition to accept reasonable political transition. This will reduce the pain of the Syrian people, and serve to restore stability in the region and the neighborhood.
The US remains the most powerful actor in the world, and has strong leverage on major Middle East players. If the US is not willing to work for compromise or reconciliation, the crisis will likely go on for a long time. For Syria, constructive mediation rather than military intervention is urgently needed.
