Commentary
Dmitri Trenin
{
"authors": [
"Dmitri Trenin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"blog": "Strategic Europe",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Levant",
"Middle East",
"Syria"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
A Syrian Model
Leading Syria to peace is a responsibility which it is safer to accept than to ignore.
Published on Apr 20, 2012
Surprisingly for many people, the Syrian cease-fire, despite numerous violations, is generally holding. Not everyone looks happy: Assad is still in power, and his opponents are as disunited as ever. Neither side is interested in peace per se, and both are still seeking to prevail. Does diplomacy, under those conditions, stand a chance? It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a dialogue between Damascus and the opposition, much less an agreement between them. The alternative, however, is a full-scale civil war, in which hundreds of thousands of Syrians may die, and which will spill over into the neighborhood.
Any eventual solution, as the Annan plan insists, must be Syrian-led. A fine phrase, but are the Syrians actually capable of leading at this point? The honest answer is no. Does it mean that a solution must be imposed on them by force? No way. Even the enthusiasts of humanitarian intervention and of forcible regime change have to admit that the costs to them will be unbearable. Whatever their conscience or their instincts tell them, they desist. So, what is the way forward?
The international community needs to look at the Syrian situation as a test case of its own maturity. Can the permanent members of the Security Council, and the Council as a whole, prevent bloodshed on a Rwandan scale in the very heart of the Middle East? Or will they just allow rivers of blood to flow on the doorstep of Europe, within striking distance of Russia’s Muslim-populated regions, in a region where the United States is most intimately involved, and which supplies China with most of its oil?
It is easy to be a skeptic, and to wait for the cease-fire to fail, hoping that one’s preferred side eventually wins. It is also easy to be a critic, blaming others but doing precious little oneself. Neither, however, is a sure path to escape responsibility. The time has come for international heavy-lifting. Russia and China need to lean on Assad to make sure he allows a robust and effective peacekeeping force into the country, not only to observe, but also to police the cease-fire. Americans and Europeans need to lean on the opposition to produce a modicum of unity in its ranks.
After that, the P-5 have to take both sides, all their kicking and screaming notwithstanding, to a negotiating table. With the help of the Arab League and Turkey, and under the UN umbrella, they need to initiate and steer a negotiating process to reform the Syrian state. This will be, of course, a long and hard haul.
Fortunately, there can be no “Libyan solution” in Syria: the would-be interveners would have only made things far worse for all, including themselves. Unfortunately, there can be no “Yemen formula” in Syria either: the country is much too complex for that. There can still be, however, a “Syrian model”—if world powers and the world body engage in coordinated diplomacy to stop mass killings and avert a mega-bloodshed. Leading Syria to peace is a responsibility which it is safer to accept than to ignore.
About the Author
Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
- Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space
- What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West RevealedCommentary
Dmitri Trenin
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Strategic Europe
- Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?Commentary
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic OpportunityCommentary
The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.
William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk
- Europe and the Arab Gulf Must Come TogetherCommentary
The war in Iran proves the United States is now a destabilizing actor for Europe and the Arab Gulf. From protect their economies and energy supplies to safeguarding their territorial integrity, both regions have much to gain from forming a new kind of partnership together.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
