How committed is Kerry to the Geneva process?

Michael Young assesses the contradictions in the White House's goals on Syria with its alliance Russia's military.

How will the US-Russian pact in Syria affect Bashar Al Assad's future. EPA

On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, met in Laos to discuss Syria, in what surely has become one of the most hypocritical diplomatic dual acts in recent memory.

Both sides still insist they are seeking a political solution to the Syrian conflict, yet both continue to support measures that can only ensure that president Bashar Al Assad remains in office. The latest initiative is the effort by the Obama administration to conclude a military agreement with Russia, the principal result of which would be to coordinate their bombings of Jabhat Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria and Mr Al Assad’s most potent foe.

Washington has portrayed the accord as a means of defending its allies in Syria. In theory, it would compel the Russians and Mr Al Assad’s air force to cease striking “moderate” rebels, presumably averting a military solution in the country. However, by targeting Jabhat Al Nusra, it could shift the military balance to such an extent that it could secure Mr Al Assad’s position.

In that context, Mr Kerry’s and Mr Lavrov’s desire to relaunch negotiations over Syria in Geneva appears to be an effort to keep alive the illusion that a political outcome still exists. That’s not to suggest that they reject a negotiated outcome; it’s simply that the Russians don’t want one that might undermine Mr Al Assad, while the Americans are now giving Moscow more latitude to impose some sort of military solution in Syria.

As for the Russians, they lose nothing by allowing the charade to continue. By November, a new administration will be preparing to take over the White House. Given Donald Trump’s open approval of President Vladimir Putin, Russia may gain if he wins. The Russians’ possible hacking into embarrassing Democratic Party emails suggests Mr Trump is their man, even if its consequences for the military deal remain unclear.

But even if Hillary Clinton were to be elected, Moscow has little incentive to take decisive decisions on Syria before seeing what her intentions and margin of manoeuvre are. So the prospect that Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov will achieve a breakthrough over Syria this summer is negligible, even assuming Washington presses for one.

There are two wars in Syria: the one against the Assad regime and the one against organisations such as ISIL and Jabhat Al Nusra. Mr Obama has shown an interest only in the second, which is why it is intriguing to see him propose a military pact with Russia that will also have a significant bearing on the first.

The only explanation is that Barack Obama is not averse to a de facto military endgame in Syria, one in which the rebels, denied a powerful ally in Jabhat Al Nusra, would be left with no alternative but to fight on in a weakened state or accede to the conditions imposed by Russia and the Syrian regime – conditions that will almost certainly sidestep the Geneva process for a transition away from Mr Al Assad.

Already, it has been flagrant that the Obama administration has had little to say about the impending humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo, where some 300,000 civilians are under siege by the Syrian regime and its allies. That Aleppo was surrounded thanks to Russian military assistance did not prevent Mr Obama from persisting in his proposal for a military deal.

Indeed, it is increasingly apparent that Mr Kerry has no room to alter Mr Obama’s Syria policy. The secretary of state has often seemed a water carrier, rallying to positions imposed by the White House in an effort to remain relevant.

Meanwhile, the president has not once put his personal credibility on the line to reinforce Mr Kerry’s diplomatic initiatives.

Publicly, Mr Kerry has endorsed the military agreement with Russia. However, he is no fool and can see that all it may really do is make a political solution more improbable, by giving the Russians and Mr Al Assad leverage to ignore Geneva. That Brett McGurk, Mr Obama’s envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIL, supports the accord makes sense. That Mr Kerry is convinced by it makes less sense.

Mr Obama’s cynicism may be short-sighted. Jabhat Al Nusra is a foul group, but it is better anchored in the Syrian uprising than ISIL. By involving itself in a battle that will have repercussions for Mr Al Assad’s future, the United States will become an active player in a war that the White House has carefully avoided since 2011. For Mr Obama to cede such an escalation to his successor is highly irresponsible.

Just as important, the president’s action has probably spelt the end of the Geneva process. That was expected since the conditions of Geneva, though they are desirable, no longer reflect the reality on the ground. Yet how odd to see Mr Kerry still insisting on Geneva, when his boss is now doing everything to render its framework meaningless.

Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut

On Twitter: @BeirutCalling