NO END IN SIGHT

The second round of the Syria peace conference in Switzerland, which was convened on the initiative of Russia and the USA has ended. It did not end terribly successfully - in actual fact they did not manage to come to an agreement on any of the subjects under discussion. This means that they have not yet managed to put an end to the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, which has been going on for three years now. 

Moreover, every day's delay is costing hundreds of lives. Strange as this may sound, but while the representatives of the sides in the conflict and the international mediators were meeting peacefully in a beautiful city [Geneva] in the most neutral country in the world, every day approximately 300 people perished in Syria. The number of refugees increased by 11 per cent (from 2.2m to 2.5m people) and the number of internally displaced persons grew by 55 per cent (from 4.2m to 6.5m people). Approximately 10m people are in need of humanitarian aid. Shortages of drinking water, a problem which is extremely important in the Middle Eastern countries, have become more acute, especially in neighbouring Jordan where many Syrians have sought refuge from the military action. People do not have anything to buy water with, and drinking unclean water is fraught with the risk of infections breaking out.

The end to the conflict is not in sight. The UN Special Representative for a settlement in Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, stated that the sides might possibly meet again for consultations during a third round of talks. The talks agenda has already been drawn up containing the following: the fight against terrorism, the transitional government, the setting up of national bodies and a scheme for national reconciliation. This is precisely why Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem thinks that the second round of talks in Geneva did not end totally in failure. 

The Syrian opposition forces do, however, see it differently. According to their representatives, the breakdown in the talks occurred because the authorities are ignoring the remaining important elements, exclusively insisting on the "terrorist" issue - the joint efforts in fighting the terrorist groupings. The opponents of Bashar al-Assad are interested first and foremost in setting up a transitional body of power. 

As far as the mediators and observers are concerned, they have also blamed official Damascus for the unproductive outcome of the talks. US Secretary of State John Kerry, with whom colleagues from Germany, France and Great Britain were in agreement, said that the conditions put forward by the authorities in Syria prevent any successful outcome from being achieved. Saudi Arabia stated that Damascus was too inflexible and tried to "distract those attending the conference from the aims adopted at the "Geneva-1" talks. John Kerry also stated that not only is Russia supplying arms to Damascus, but Iran and the Lebanese Shiite movement "Hezbollah" has boosted its aid to the al-Assad regime as well. 

Statements were heard from the American side that Washington may announce the beginning of arms deliveries to the Syrian opposition. This was reference to "small arms".

Quoting sources in high places, the Wall Street Journal reports that a plan to declare Syrian skies a no-fly zone is being considered.

It is noteworthy that a meeting has taken place of heads of the special services of the 11 countries that are members of the "Friends of Syria" group purportedly precisely for the purpose of thinking over possible military aid to the Syrian rebels. The mass media are quoting the words of the official Pentagon spokesman, Rear Admiral John Kirby, that "a new strategy for resolving the Syrian problem" has already started to be worked out. True, Kirby elaborated: no decision on use of force has been taken yet; we are just talking about the different variants for further developing the situation. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also stressed that his boss is still sceptical about the military scenario for resolving the Syrian crisis. Incidentally, rumours have it that it is precisely Barack Obama's point of view that has caused a disagreement between the president and John Kerry, who is in favour of more decisive actions.

Moreover, the USA fears that the arms might find their way in to the hands of such radical Islamic groupings as the  "Jabhat al-Nusra" Front ("The Front for Victory"]), which is considered a cell of the international Al-Qaeda network in Syria. The fact is that among the ranks of the Syrian opposition there are, to all appearances, serious squabbles and rivalry going on. It is reported that recently the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) removed its commander, General Salim Idriss, replacing him with Brigadier General Abdel al-Illah al-Bashir. In December last year Idriss was unable to defend his headquarters and stockpiles of ammunition against invasion by "Al-Nusra" fighters.

The general himself who was also accused of selling arms to the extremists on his own and was forced to flee abroad. Moreover, it is noted that it was precisely Idriss who had been acting as the main intermediary in the talks with the US Administration of late. At the same time, Idriss himself has refused to recognise the decision that he should   resign and has stated he would cease to have any kind of contacts with the Syrian National Coalition and that reforming the Syrian Free Army would start. Idriss has called upon all the moderate opposition forces to unite in a structure headed by him.

It is noteworthy that during the press conference on 17 February Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow had learned that foreign sponsors of the Syrian opposition were preparing to set up a new structure which would replace the National Coalition. The new structure would most likely be created from the groupings that had already left the National Coalition.

"In other words, a course is being taken which would mean departing from the path of negotiations and once again staking on a military scenario, on the fact that powerful support will be rendered from outside once again," the Russian Foreign Ministry believes.

Russia does in fact support the stance of official Damascus, believing that most of Syria's problems originate not from Bashar al-Assad's regime, but precisely from the terrorist and extremist groupings.

As far as the USA's accusations of arms deliveries being made to the al-Assad regime are concerned, Russia objects to them because firstly they are defensive weapons and secondly Moscow is co-operating with a legitimate government, which is not prohibited by any international rules. The Russian foreign minister has also stated that, instead of demanding that Russia bring greater pressure to bear on the Syrian authorities, it would be worth Washington itself forging contacts with official Damascus.

It turns out that immediately after the "Geneva-2" talks had ended, the heads of the American and Russian foreign policy departments started talks with regional forces that have some kind of influence on the Syrian conflict. Thus, Sergey Lavrov visited Kuwait, where he attended a session of Russia's third strategic dialogue with the Council of Co-operation of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman and Saudi Arabia). John Kerry has held talks in Jakarta with a UAE delegation, insisting on the expansion of aid to the Syrian opposition.

Against this backdrop, work has been completed at the UN Security Council on a draft resolution on the humanitarian situation in Syria. According to information that appeared in the media, the document calls upon the sides in the Syrian conflict to combat terrorism in the country. Incidentally, Russia gave it to be understood earlier that it intends to block deliveries by humanitarian convoys from outside Syria unless they have the consent of the country's authorities. Moscow is convinced that "these [humanitarian convoys ] are in direct breach of international humanitarian law which embraces norms approved at the UN for the purposes of humanitarian operations, and the Security Council will not create such precedents."

So, did the "Geneva-2" talks really end in failure? If we do admit that, then we have to agree that nothing more needs to be done and Syria is fated to resolve the conflict by force. It is difficult to guess what the outcome of such a variant would be, but the casualties among the civilian population would be many times higher. Therefore, the talks naturally  need to be resumed. But if they are not simply going to run idle, then the international community should at least precisely name all the terrorist groupings active in Syria, and the Syrian opposition should get to grips with all the contradictions and "internal" issues.

And finally no side that may be able to influence the conflicting sides, for example Iran, should be disregarded. But for the moment everything is going ahead in exactly the opposite manner: Syria is continuing to sate itself with weapons; the civilian population remains on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe; the sides in the conflict are not listening to one another; the diplomats and the politicians are actively conducting negotiations, which are on the whole unproductive; and one of the most ancient surviving capitals in the world has in actual fact turned into a hotbed of terrorism.

SAD STATISTICS

According to the London-based rights group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 5,792 people have been killed in Syria from the beginning of the Geneva talks (22 January) to 14 February 2014, which made this period of time the bloodiest. 1,622 civilians (including 564 women and children) were killed in air strikes and shelling and 84 died from hunger and lack of medicines. In total, more than 140,000 people have died in three years of war. This is confirmed by official UN statistics - from October 2013 to January 2014, the death toll in the Syrian war increased by 36 per cent (from 100,000 to 136,000, including 11,000 children).