First the US, then the French, the Saudis and Syria’s main opposition body, the National Coalition, all yesterday lined up to reject Iranian participation in the US-Russia sponsored Syria peace talks due to open tomorrow in Montreux in Switzerland and then to resume in Geneva. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon must withdraw his invitation, they said – and last night, he did. Iran’s refusal to commit itself to the so-called Geneva 1 principles, it was argued, would mean the process to be mediated by UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi was being unwound before talks could even begin. Before Mr Ban’s decision it had seemed the talks were unlikely to go ahead.
The accord reached in Geneva in 2012, ostensibly the starting point for a “Geneva 2”, calls for a transitional government for Syria, which western countries and the opposition say means Syrian president Bashar al Assad must leave power.
No more than the Iranians, Assad, whose military and diplomatic position appears to have strengthened since 2012, does not share that interpretation and is even speaking about standing for re-election this year, in effect dismissing talk of his departure from power. He rejects the idea of rebels in cabinet. And yet there is no question of his representative being excluded from talks – whether they can achieve anything is another matter.
Ban had said his invitation to the Iranians followed private assurances from officials that they “welcome” the Geneva 1 principles and that they had pledged to play “a positive and constructive role”. Tehran, Syria’s key political and military ally, yesterday was saying it had not, and would not, accept any preconditions.
Such mixed messages and megaphone diplomacy do not bode well for any agreement. Unless in practice the parties get to the point where, whether they acknowledge it or not, they are putting flesh on Geneva 1 in terms of preparing the way for a transitional government they will be pointless.