I wish I could be optimistic about Geneva 2. That it happened at all is good, but "good for what" remains unclear. Listening to the speeches at the opening session last week established that none of the participants is ready to deal with the reality of what has become the most horrific tragedy of this new century.
During the past three years, the Syrian people have been victimised by a cruel and unrelenting war. While the warring sides may argue over who is at fault and what should now be done, what remains indisputable are the cold hard numbers of those who have been killed or forced to flee home. Less quantifiable, but still real, is the physical destruction of once beautiful neighbourhoods and world heritage treasures and the emotional destruction of a generation of children who will bear the scars of this war for years to come. The people may be exhausted, but the regime and the rebels are not.
Three years into this bloody mess, what should have been clear from the outset has now become certain: This conflict will not end with one side claiming a decisive victory. Neither the regime and its international sponsors, nor the opposition and the countries that support them, will be able to win. That this simple fact is not accepted by either side is what keeps the conflict going.
While it is easy to find fault with the combatants, equally at fault are those who have funded them, armed them and provided them with political support without control or conditions. Continuing to fuel the fight is a crime.
The fragmented opposition’s delegation at Geneva still claims to speak for the Syrian people. The reality on the ground speaks otherwise. They blame the US for not supporting them and refuse to accept responsibility for their own disarray. Some of their elements continue to maintain that their revolution is democratic and pluralistic, but the main forces doing the fighting – even those who are now termed as “moderates” – are anything but. Among the main rebel forces are disciplined extremist groups that have committed deplorable acts against civilians. Even now the opposition coalition insists on the precondition that Bashar Al Assad must step aside, as if they would be in a position to govern in his stead.
Mr Al Assad continues to speak of “legitimacy”, but his behaviour has cost him the right to claim that mantle. He was a brutal dictator before the war began and his conduct during the conflict has rightly earned him the epitaph of “war criminal”.
It was especially galling to listen to the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Al Moallem, speak of the “will of the Syrian people”, lecturing the US secretary of state: “No one, Mr Kerry, has the right to withdraw legitimacy of the [Syrian] president other than the Syrians themselves.” He said this with a straight face, ignoring the tens of thousands killed, the millions who have been forced to flee and the cities that have been devastated – in the vain effort to establish this claim of “legitimacy”.
The regime has run its course. Just as surely, the opposition is not in a position to lead. Therein lies the core of the tragedy. It is not just that neither side can win, but that neither side deserves to win nor can they, in any event, govern Syria.
Syria and the Syrian people deserve better. Those who maintain that the culture of the Syrian people is open, tolerant and progressive are right. But those qualities are fast fading. Three years of conflict have ushered in a new reality of fanaticism, violence and sectarian hostility. It will be hard to build the new Syria, but Syrians still deserve the chance.
I have never supported a war and I find it difficult to do so now, but I am increasingly convinced that the US and international community have a responsibility to act and may need to use force to help end this conflict. If Geneva 2 fails to make progress towards any meaningful compromise, action must be taken.
There are firm demands that should be presented to all sides. The regime must stop its aggressive assault on “rebel-held positions” in populated areas. The destruction created by attacks on neighbourhoods and the suffering that has been inflicted on innocent civilians is unacceptable. The opposition must be pressed to consolidate its ranks by becoming more inclusive and adopting a nonsectarian narrative. And they must purge their ranks of sectarian extremists.
Establishing a power-sharing transitional government will not be easy or quick. But both sides must be disabused of the notion that they can govern alone. The opposition has its base, as does the regime. If they want to be part of Syria’s future and if their backers want to be seen as making a constructive contribution to a resolution, they must agree to such a power-sharing arrangement.
If this does not occur within a defined period of time, then the US may find it necessary to mobilise international support to launch strikes in Syria against both the regime and positions held by extremist groups. The strikes would in all likelihood need to be significant and sustained enough to change the calculations of the combatants. The Russians may choose to be part of this solution or not. But we are long past the time when the fate of Syria should be decided by a Russian veto.
Simultaneously, the US should mobilise a post-agreement peacekeeping force and a reconstruction and resettlement fund for Syria and its millions of refugees and internally displaced persons. Even after a power-sharing arrangement is reached, international support will be important to give the Syrians the time they need to make it work.
US involvement may not be welcomed by many Americans and it will likely be rejected in many parts of the Arab world. But enough is enough. Something must be done to help end this Syrian nightmare.
James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute