UNSOLVABLE PROBLEM

Apparently, the Syrian conflict, which followed the Arab Spring in 2011, seems to change the vectors for settlement. The recent summit of the leaders of Turkey, Russia, France and Germany held in Istanbul gives every reason for such conclusions.

Due the intervention of foreign states and various terrorist groups, the conflict in Syria has transformed from a civil war into a global crisis. The central position of Syria in the Middle East, as well as the difference in social, political, economic and religious interests of the regional parties and states directly involved in the conflict have further extended the term of this indirect war. Millions of refugees and the destruction of historical and cultural artefacts became the main outcome of the confrontation.

Over the past few years, the world community has been making numerous, sometimes desperate attempts to stop the Syrian slaughter and to solve the conflict using the mainstream political tools and mechanisms. The first consolidated attempt by world powers was the establishment of the International Syria Support Group. The Geneva and Astana processes, which in essence did not produce any meaningful results only by designating the power centres interested in resolving the conflict can be considered the logical consequence of the peace-making efforts. If the United States held the leading role within the Geneva format on Syria, the Astana format assumed a peaceful settlement under the leadership of Russia. Trilateral alliance of Russia, Turkey and Iran was set to balance the International Coalition in Syria, which set as its main objective the rout of ISIL and other radical Islamist terrorist groups. After the defeat of the terrorists, the Syrian crisis entered a new stage - the gradual extinction of military actions and a direction toward a peaceful settlement. After that, various parties to the conflict began to show their vision of the political arrangement in the post-war Syria.

A rare chance of negotiation

Undoubtedly, Turkey holds the most interesting position in this context as the leading regional player. Initially part of the international coalition, it subsequently modified its approach entering into a situational deal with Russia and Iran. This was possible due to the exacerbation of the Kurdish issue and the hidden desire of the United States to split Syria into separate, controlled parts. Whatever are Erdogan’s disagreements with the Assad regime, the prospect of forming another semi-independent Kurdish autonomy at Turkish borders forced the Turkish leader to make certain concessions.

Today, the Kurds backed by the US, control all of the Syrian territory in the north-east of the country straddling the bed of the ancient Euphrates between the Kurds and the pro-government forces supported by Russia and Iran. After the successful operation of the latter, only the Idlib district, which is traditionally strongly Turkish influenced, remains under the control of opposition groups. At the same time, Ankara continues to control the northern regions of Syria, adjacent to the border and inhabited mainly by Turkomans. Following the recent agreement of the Russian and Turkish presidents in Sochi, the Idlib area after demilitarization will be jointly monitored by the Russian and Turkish military police. At the same time, the process of the return of refugees is in ongoing. To do this, it is necessary to raise the infrastructure of Syria destroyed by the war, to rebuild cities and other settlements of the country, to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. But who and how will help Syria rise from the ruins?

On the other hand, the question of developing a new constitution of Syria, which would reflect the interests of all parties to the conflict, is becoming ever more relevant. After the victories of the pro-government forces, Bashar al-Assad has further strengthened position. Nevertheless, many experts agree that the Syrian leader will have to say goodbye at least to part of their powers. But how to make Assad peacefully leave the political arena, and who will represent the Alawite minority of the country? These questions will be answered after constitutional change in the country.

The Istanbul summit attempted to solve the difficult problems caused by these issues.

Unpredictable outcome

Remarkably, the United States and Iran did not attend the Istanbul summit on Syria. Probably, because the top officials of these countries could not come to terms yet. At the same time, European leaders categorically rejected the possible anti-American orientation of the summit. So, according to French media, before flying to Istanbul, Emmanuel Macron had a private telephone conversation with the US President Trump.

It is quite possible that the US represented by France is testing the ground for further involvement in the negotiation process, but in expanded format. Thus, Washington is trying to save face in the settlement of the Syrian issue that is clearly not following its scenario. But it could be the personal initiative of Macron trying to play the role of world leader and peacemaker. In particular, he was excitedly speaking about the global values at the International Economic Forum recently held in St. Petersburg. After all, being a peace-making politician is more popular in the West than the hawkish ideology. Angela Merkel also has certain rating problems. After the summit, it became known that the German chancellor would no longer run for head of the Christian Democratic Union due to a record low level of public support. This means that the current term of office as chancellor will be the last for Merkel. The main reason was the policy of accepting millions of migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Merkel, like the whole Europe annoyed by the multitude of migrants, is very interested in speeding up the process of returning a certain number of refugees to their homeland, or at least preventing new waves of migration through Turkey. The EU, represented by its main players in Germany and France, is even ready to re-open the question of providing certain means to Erdogan. A couple of years ago, the cost of maintaining 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey was estimated by Europe at 2 billion euros, while the Turkish leader demanded 6 billion and membership in the EU. This ended, however, in scandals around the name of Erdogan and the closest to him leaders of the AKP (Justice and Development Party), who were declared in Europe "undesirable persons". Therefore, the visit of the EU leaders to Istanbul is an undoubted victory for Erdogan. He hinted at this in his speech on the results of the summit.

“The Syrian conflict has become a global problem because the world community did not consider the problem global. For a long time, the entire burden of the Syrian conflict fell on the shoulders of neighbouring countries and Syria itself,” Erdogan said.

But the Russian President Vladimir Putin wrapped up the main outcome of the summit at a joint press conference, where he set the dates for the establishment of the Constitutional Committee of Syria, which should be formed before the end of this year. Thus, V. Putin stated the advantage of the Astana process over Geneva and his operational victory in Syria.

“All participants of the meeting agree on the main points: long-term stability in Syria can be achieved only by political and diplomatic means and with strict adherence to the principles of unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Moreover, it must be Syrians who determine the future of their country. The work carried out under the Astana format has created favourable conditions for this thanks to the active participation of Russia, Turkey and Iran,” Putin said.

The Istanbul summit showed that Europe was ready to negotiate on more or less acceptable conditions. The important factor that pushes Europe to reconcilement can be Donald Trump's short-sighted policy. In particular, his statement about a possible exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) threatens the whole configuration of European security. By agreeing with Russia and Turkey, Europe shows foreign policy flexibility and willingness to compromise.

As for Syria, let us hope that the preliminary agreements of the world powers will help in the near future to return peace and stability to this troubled land.