The fate of a constitutional committee today that is the product of haggling between Russia-Turkey and Iran and thus excludes Syria’s most important political actors, the SDF/DSA, will not be different from that of its predecessors.
Yusuf Karadaş
United Nations (UN) General Secretary Guterres’s announcement that agreement had been reached concerning the composition of a “constitutional committee” to be created in Syria and the committee would be facilitated by the UN in Geneva in the coming weeks has been portrayed as an important step taken in the direction of a political solution in Syria. However, lurking behind the agreement concerning the composition of the constitutional committee announced by the UN is the trilateral summit between Putin-Erdoğan and Rouhani on 16 September. It may be recalled that there was an announcement at the joint press conference held following this meeting that the complications relating to the composition of the constitutional committee to be created in Syria had been resolved.
The most significant reaction to the constitutional committee that has come into being has been that of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which have been excluded from this committee. It was stressed in the statement made by the SDF that this committee had been constituted in line with Russia, Turkey and Iran’s interests, not those of the Syrian people. Furthermore, it was pointed out that it would be impossible for a committee not included in the Democratic Syrian Assembly (DSA) to embrace all the Syrian peoples and draw up a democratic constitution.
Indeed, in view of the decisiveness of Syrian government and its greatest supporter, Russia, as to cleansing Idlib of jihadist groups, the greatest uncertainty when it comes to the political solution in Syria consists of the question of what the status of the entity east of the Euphrates is to be. It is impossible for the countries/forces that are haggling over the composition of the constitutional committee to be unaware of this fact. Hence, the creation of a committee from which the SDF are excluded acquires meaning as a move informed by calculations of the countries engaged in haggling over the composition of this committee aimed at tipping the balances on the ground in their favour, rather than a step taken in the direction of political solution.
This conclusion may at first sight appear to be exaggerated, but this is the picture to emerge from contemplation of the talks devoted to a political solution in Syria until now and the forces having a say in who gets to participate at these talks.
Heading the list of talks that inspired the greatest hope for a political solution were the talks held in Geneva under UN auspices.
No result was forthcoming from the Geneva-1 (2012) and Geneva-2 (2014) talks during which jihadist groups were influential in the Syria war and in which Assad’s departure was imposed as a precondition. However, there was a widespread expectation that a political solution would emerge from the Geneva-3 talks starting in February 2016 under conditions in which Russia had by now begun to effectively intervene and there had been a significant cleansing of jihadist groups. Despite the expectations engendered surrounding the Geneva-3 talks, there was a major obstacle to a political solution emerging. Participation at these talks by the SDF, of which the Syrian Kurds are the main component, was blocked by the Erdoğan administration in Turkey which views that Kurds’ attainments as a threat to itself. Consequently, these talks from which the Kurds, a force that neither the US nor Russia can ignore when it comes to determining Syria’s future, were excluded involved mutual accusations between the Syrian regime and the ousted opposition and inconclusive discussions. Following Geneva-3, the talks continued as far as Geneva-8 but nothing worthwhile by way of political solution emerged from these talks.
Just like the Geneva talks, we can say that, however much a political solution was spoken of, a result eluded the Astana talks conducted between Russia-Turkey and Iran because these talks were focused on the interests of the countries conducting these talks, rather than a political solution that would embrace all milieus in Syria.
If it is necessary to generalize on the various talks that have been held until now devoted to a political solution in Syria, the conclusion to emerge would be that a result has eluded these talks because they were conducted in relation to calculations and negotiations between the forces that are struggling for domination in the region (the Middle East) through Syria and not the Syrian peoples and the political-social milieus that should have a say in Syria’s future.
It takes no great foresight to say that the fate of a constitutional committee today that is the product of haggling between Russia-Turkey and Iran and thus excludes Syria’s most important political actors, the SDF/DSA, will not be different from that of its predecessors.
In brief, what can be said about the calculation underlying the establishing of a constitutional committee with such a composition is that the wish is to deliver a message to the US through a quest for a solution without the US that it does not constitute a legitimate force in Syria – which is true – but the same truth also applies to Turkey whose presence in Syria is not at the Syrian regime’s pleasure-invitation. Moreover, a political solution based on the will of the Syrian peoples can purely and simply only be possible under conditions in which all foreign forces cease to intervene.
Secondly, excluding the SDF from the constitutional committee is a move consistent with the Syrian government recently sending a letter to the UN branding the SDF “separatist terrorist militias.” The aim of this move is obviously to up the pressure on the SDF which has been excluded from the process and to force the SDF to accept terms dictated by the Syrian regime and its supporters.
However, contrary to what has been calculated, the US appears happy with developments, with the US Department of State Spokesperson announcing that they greeted the setting up of the Syria Constitutional Committee with satisfaction, because the exclusion of the Kurdish formation east of the Euphrates from the process enables the US to gain time by postponing a political solution to the indeterminate future and, more importantly, it will actually strengthen the US’s hand by making the SDF/Kurds, having been excluded from the process, more dependent on the US.
It thus unfortunately does not appear possible to achieve a political solution from the constitutional committee that has been formed today notwithstanding the massive destruction that the war in Syria of more than eight years’ standing has wrought.
(Translated by Tim DRAYTON)
Ceren Sözeri
Aras Coşkuntuncel