Although the war in Ukraine has overshadowed the Syrian conflict, diplomatic approaches to resolve it continue even after eleven years since its start back in March 2011. Representatives of the Arab League, the European Union, Norway, Turkey, Britain and the US have recently held further discussions on the Syrian issue in Washington, DC.

In the official statement issued after the summit, the parties underlined their commitment to the settlement of the Syrian conflict in line with the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2254 focused on protecting the rights and dignity of all the Syrians.

In addition, participant states expressed their support for the ongoing rescue operations in Syria, international humanitarian campaigns and the fight against terrorism, as well as their respect for the country's territorial integrity and sovereignty. They also expressed support to the political solution of the conflict led by the UN Special Envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen and the seventh round of meetings of the Syrian Constitutional Commission slated for this month. They called on countries hosting Syrian refugees to ensure their safety until they return home.

Challenges of negotiations

Apparently, there is still much to be done to resolve this long-standing conflict once and forever. First and foremost, it is necessary to ensure a meeting between all the involved parties. After all, the group of countries and organisations gathering in Washington, DC does not have enough experience of international cooperation to resolve the Syrian issue. What we see today is just one of the ‘fronts’ of the conflict, the members of which came together as though to make a generic statement. And that’s what they have been doing for eleven years.

Meanwhile, there have emerged serious problems between the countries that could play an instrumental role in resolving the Syrian conflict. The Syrian policy of the incumbent US government is unclear, nor has Washington made its course or strategy on the issue public so far. In addition, the Ukrainian conflict adds more fuel to the tense relations between the US and Russia. Therefore, in the current situation, it is unlikely that Washington is really ready to discuss Syria behind the same table with Moscow.

Moreover, the absence of representatives from Moscow, Tehran and Damascus at the meeting in Washington, DC demonstrates that the decisions will have no real impact on the Syrian theatre of war, which remains as fragmented as it was five years ago. At the moment, the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad controls more than 60% of the country. There are also Russian military units, as well as armed groups backed by Iran, including Hezbollah militants.

Twenty-five per cent of Syrian territory is controlled by armed groups from the informal Kurdish autonomy, also known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition set up by Kurds and other smaller ethnic groups back in 2016. It is also home to US and French military bases.

Various opposition groups, including armed Islamists, control some territories in the northern Syrian province of Idlib bordering Turkey. Units of the Syrian army together with Russian and Iranian troops hold positions in the southern part of Idlib. Central and northern parts of the country are under the control of opposition militants, while the Turkish army monitors the ceasefire. In addition, Turkish army checkpoints have been set up in three different areas in the north of the country, in an area stretching from west to east. Opposition groups and a US airbase are located in the Al-Tanf settlement in southeastern Syria. Certain parts of Homs province in the central part of the country are under the control of ISIS militants. In other words, Syria remains a fragmented country where part of its territory is under the control of different factions fighting with each other.

Obviously, a new hotbed of war in Ukraine somewhat distracts attention from the Syrian issue. Therefore, it is difficult for Washington and Moscow to find a common ground at this stage of military action.

Reasons for incompatibility

In a sense, the stalemate in the Geneva negotiation process for a political settlement of the Syrian conflict is due to the incompatible interests of the major powers. We listed the key issues related to this phenomenon below.

First, the fate of Idlib remains unclear. This northern province is currently the last major stronghold of the Syrian political and military opposition. It is also home to a large number of radical armed Islamist groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, and the Uighur Islamic Party of Turkestan. The Syrian government supported by Russian and Iranian forces is trying to clear the area from these groups and thus take control of the province and destroy the stronghold of opposition. However, according to a March 2020 agreement between Turkey and Russia, there is a ceasefire in Idlib. But the fate of this province could have a principal effect on the future of the entire Syrian conflict. Therefore, the current situation in the province could escalate into a large-scale war at any moment.

Secondly, one must think of the fate of the Syrian Kurds. They now control a large part of the country. In 2016, Kurds formed a functioning local government. Now they try to get autonomy from Syria, just as they did earlier in Iraq. Western countries provide them support on this issue, bringing forward as their main argument the fact that the central Syrian government is depriving the Kurds of their rights. Bashar al-Assad's government, as well as Iran and Turkey, hold a different position because of the regional Kurdish threat. Russia, on the other hand, sympathises with the Kurdish autonomy, although it tries not to go public about it. Moscow maintains good relations with Kurdish political and military groups.

Finally, the key issue is the fate of Bashar al-Assad himself. Russia and especially Iran, as the main guarantors of political agreements in the settlement process, are interested in preserving the power of the incumbent head of state. At the same time, opposition forces are unwilling to make any compromises regarding Al-Assad. However, compared to the previous two issues, this is the one that seems the most convenient in terms of reaching an agreement.

Arab rapprochement and progress

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates is allegedly holding talks with Syria on the Kurdish issue as soon as Abu Dhabi restored political and diplomatic relations with Damascus, media outlets report. UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed is expected to discuss this issue with Bashar al-Assad during his visit to Damascus in November 2022.

Incidentally, Jordan is another Arab country that has ‘made peace’ with Syria in 2021. Both countries have resumed air flights after a long pause. Interestingly, Washington, which maintains good relations with both the UAE and Jordan, has not openly hindered this rapprochement. It seems the US-Iran nuclear agreement will likely affect a number of processes in the region, including the Syrian conflict. In parallel, there are talks on normalisation of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Key political issues on the regional agenda of both countries are the ones related to Yemen and Syria. However, even some rapprochement between the countries in the region will not be enough to reach a fundamental agreement on Syria.

Furthermore, regular bombing of Iranian forces by Israeli air force in Syria and the retreat of pro-Iranian forces to the south of the country suggest that there will be further armed clashes. In other words, the course of recent events shows that it is impossible to achieve significant progress in settling the Syrian conflict. The unexpected activation and attacks of ISIS militants in Kurdish areas earlier this year tipped the scale towards armed confrontation rather than a political settlement.

Significant progress in the Geneva process seems unlikely, as there is still no fundamental solution to the Kurdish issue. On the contrary, as tensions around Idlib escalate, the likelihood of clashes between government forces or pro-government militias and Kurds will increase. In particular, tensions remain likely to escalate in late spring, during the harvest season in what are considered the main breadbaskets of Syria in Kurdish-controlled areas. This suggests that the likelihood of a political solution this year is relatively low, giving way to an increasing risk of armed conflict.