Skip to main content

Syria Action Group Plan May Only Add to Muddle

Aaron David Miller writes that right now, the conflict in Syria is less amenable to outside intervention than at any point since it began, precisely because it’s owned — as only a struggle for survival can be — by the parties waging it, not by the members of the Action Group on Syria.
Kofi Annan (R) Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League for Syria speaks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and an unidentified UN official before a dinner hosted by the Swiss authorities after a meeting of the Action Group for Syria at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva June 30, 2012. REUTERS/Laurent Gillieroni/Pool (SWITZERLAND - Tags: POLITICS)

The details of what was and was not agreed to in the recent Geneva meeting of the Action Group on Syria aren’t yet available, but it’s hard to imagine that the outcome — a new Kofi Annan plan for a national unity government leading to a political transition — will have any more success than his last six-point initiative. In fact, the results in Geneva are only likely to lead to a bigger muddle by sending confusing signals about whether Assad — the master of this disaster — can be part of the transition process.

Four primary obstacles confront a diplomatic solution to the bitter conflict in Syria. And as much as we’d all like to see a settlement negotiated, the killing end, the Assads depart, and a new democratic Syria born, it’s unlikely to happen through the UN special envoy’s plan — either version A or B. These kind of conflicts usually end when one side prevails or third parties intercede to tip the balance and force a solution. Neither is likely to happen anytime soon.

Access the Middle East news and analysis you can trust

Join our community of Middle East readers to experience all of Al-Monitor, including 24/7 news, analyses, memos, reports and newsletters.

Subscribe

Only $100 per year.