As decision-makers start to consider a wider variety of options for preventing the further use of chemical weapons in Syria, there appears to be a growing global consensus that only a new political settlement will actually resolve the conflict.
A peace process to get to such a point will not come about by chance, but needs to be crafted, resourced and committed to with at least as much energy as has been invested in cultivating support for military strikes.
Peaceful, political and diplomatic options have not yet been exhausted. A process to discuss putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control could prove to be a useful first step in building some of the trust needed for further political dialogue.
At the same time, conciliatory voices are being heard from within the new Iranian Government, which need to be acknowledged and responded to.
Syrian people should be front and centre in determining their own future
As long as viable non-violent options exist, the international community should pursue them. The threat of military action still remains on the table and yet the consequences of any such action on the Syrian people seem to be largely absent from many discussions.
Syrians themselves would bear the brunt of any attacks and retaliation. A military strike designed to weaken the leadership’s military capability might pave the way for intensified dialogue - but it might not. The risks of this strategy are high, the outcome uncertain, and those who would bear the consequences are not those who make the decisions.
While the Syrian conflict may have regional and now global dimensions, we should not overlook the fact that those inflicting violence and the first line of response to it are almost exclusively Syrian.
There are many Syrians who share a commitment to a peaceful, pluralistic and democratic Syria, and have been working for such over the past two years of conflict and longer. In dangerous conditions they are currently negotiating access to food and medical supplies, the release of hostages and prisoners, and local ceasefires.
The world needs to support such individuals and organisations in their current work, as well as recognising them as people who can help design, promote and implement an eventual political settlement. Their leadership and participation should be promoted in international initiatives, including a reinvigorated Geneva II peace conference.
Develop and support an inclusive and multi-faceted peace strategy
Geneva II could represent a first step towards a peace process, and preparations should be pursued in parallel to initiatives on chemical weapons. More effort, innovative and long-term strategic thinking is needed about how to use such a conference to create a new political settlement.
Peace processes are a way to transform society. How the Geneva II process is designed, how inclusive it is – including of women and minority groups – and whether it addresses political, social and economic aspects of society, is crucial to enable Syrians to reconstruct their political system.
Involving a wide cross-section of Syrian society as well as President Assad and members of the regime in a Geneva conference could help set the ground for a political transition. All regional and global powers with influence over groups in Syria must also be part of this conference.
Conciliation Resources’ experience from previous successful peace initiatives in other contexts is that the expectations and benchmarks for success must not be set too high: even agreements on an initial ceasefire would represent welcome progress.
The international community should also be mindful that helping to end violent conflict is not the sole preserve of powerful nation states, and sometimes the wisest course of action can be to create the space for others with relevant and comparable experience to build parallel and linked paths to peace.
Governments including the UK and US, as well as the UN system itself, have invested significant time, energy and resources in developing capabilities and resources in negotiation, mediation and dialogue.
Such expertise also exists outside formal diplomatic circles, within the NGO sector. If there were ever a time when those capabilities and expertise ought to be called on it is now – when negotiations on chemical weapons offer the potential to lead to a broader dialogue, and when senior US military officials as well as substantial international public opinion are on the same side in expressing doubts over the potential effectiveness of military action.
The time is now ripe to build on existing mediation efforts, as well as the diplomatic momentum surrounding the use of chemical weapons, and create a dialogue process that leads to a sustainable peace for the people of Syria.
Authored by David Newton, Director of Policy, Practice and Communications, and Teresa Dumasy, Head of Policy and Learning, on behalf of peacebuilding NGO Conciliation Resources