At the end of January 2014, the Geneva II Conference on Syria (Geneva II) took place, yet it did not bring about any outcomes. Notably, though forecasted to come to a deadlock, it was held under the pressure of the US and Western countries. Is that true that the conference paves the way to another mean of the outside intervention in Syria?

Born in a diplomatic deadlock

The Geneva II Conference on Syria was held following the initiative of the US Secretary of State John Kerry on the occasion of his visit to Russia (7 May 2013) and was supported by Moscow. Naturally, the US and Russia became co-sponsors for the conference. Notably, this “diplomatic initiative” was first proposed by US Secretary of State on the occasion of 68th anniversary of the Great Victory over Nazi Germany. Taking this opportunity, John Kerry recalled that in the past the US and Russian soldiers were in the same trenches to fight against the fascism, and now the two countries are in the “war to combat terrorism”, therefore, both Russia and the US should be side by side in an effort to “prevent the terrorism in Syria”. Immediately, John Kerry’s proposal was questioned by analysts since his predecessor Hillary Clinton had once said: “Russian support and assistance to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a chief culprit to cause the humanitarian crisis in Syria”.

Following the “sincere” prelude, US Secretary of State intentionally urged Russia to stop supplying the Syrian Armed Forces with modern weapons, including S-300 air defence missile systems. According to the US viewpoint, those weapons are only to assist the Syrian government to cause “a massacre to the civilians” and to make the humanitarian crisis in Syria become more serious. Therefore, once more, John Kerry insinuated that Russia was the factor to create the “humanitarian crisis” in Syria via the reiteration of last declaration of the US Department of State. However, John Kerry’s diplomatic tactics failed to persuade Russia. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov confirmed that Russia’s supply of weapons to the Syrian government was followed the contracts signed before 2010 and did not violate any of international laws. In order to salvage his reputation and the outcome of the visit, US Secretary of State proposed a new “initiative”: to hold  the Geneva II Conference on Syria to seek political solutions for the conflict in this country. John Kerry also said equivocally that the Geneva II Conference would proceed the outcomes of the Geneva I Conference, demonstrated in the Joint Communiqué of 30 June 2012. Accordingly, parties in Syria would negotiate to form an interim transitional government to terminate the crisis without the resignation of the President Bashar al-Assad as the prerequisite. However, after leaving Russia for his visit to Italy, during the meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister (who was concurrently visiting Italy), US Secretary of State made a surprising annoucement on the prerequisite of the Geneva II Conference which requested the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad. John Kerry’s announcement had shadowed his “diplomatic initiative” during his visit in Russia just two days before. Supported by this, Syrian opposition forces declared that all political agreements of the conflict in Syria would only commence with the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad.

A “Diplomatic War” at the United Nations

On 15 May 2014, just only one week after the “initiative” to hold  the Geneva II Conference was proposed, being initiated and submitted by the US, the Resolution on Syria was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Through this Resolution, the US and  Western countries condemned the escalation of force by the Syrian government, such as “the use of heavy weapons, such as aircraft, ballistic missiles, cluster bombs, etc, and other kinds of weapons to attack the population centres and opposition forces”. Notably, if in the past, resolutions on Syria (proposed by the US) were to condemn “the excessive use of force against the civilians”, then content of the Resolution of May 15, 2013 has been significantly expanđe. The US has unreasonably condemned Syria for “attacking schools, hospitals, inflicting casualties, hanging and killing of the masses without trial; killing and chasing strikers, journalists and law defenders; arresting and annulling of innocent people without asking for permission; violating the children rights via recruitment and employment of children in combat operations; hindering medical assistance services, failing to observe the inviolable rights of medics; torturing and using sexual force, having savage and cruel actions with children”. According to observers, through this action, the US and Western countries sent a  message to the world opinion, implying that the situation in Syria was extremely serious, threatening not only regional peace but also international security and peace; therefore, preparing legal grounds to bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court. More importantly, the hidden intention of the US and Western countries behind the Resolution on Syria was to spearhead at Russia and to affirm that Moscow’s support to Syria government was a “criminal action”.

Combining the “Diplomatic War” and the threat of military intervention

While in the diplomatic front, the US proposed an “initiative” to hold the Geneva II Conference on Syria, in the reality, the US and its allies has intensely prepared for military intervention in Syria to save the opposition forces who lost their power when conducting the war of terrorism, aimed at throwing President Bashar al-Assad away. In order to carry out this intention, the US both accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons to “kill civilians”, and supplied Syrian opposition forces with weapons, even threatened to launch a military operation to punish Syria. However, this intention was not supported by the United Nations and the international community, including US close allies. In this situation, the initiative of exchanging chemical weapons for peace in Syria, proposed by Russia, defused the Syrian “time bomb”. Earlier, in a press conference at the end of G-20 Meeting at St. Petersburg on 6 September 2013, Russian President V. Putin asserted: “In terms of international laws, the use of force of a certain country in the relation with another sovereign country is permitted only for fighting against foreign aggressors or followed by the decision of the UN Security Council. The US decision to attack Syria by military means is only seen as an aggressive action”. According to some observers, although the risk of war was abolished, it did not mean that the military solution for Syria was totally eliminated if the political solution for the crisis was not reached. The breakdown of peaceful negotiations, the delay of the destruction process of chemical weapons in Syria, and the urgent need of people’s relief work would be the most “reasonable” pretext for the US and Western countries’ use of force against Syria. This is the reason why failure of the Geneva II Conference  was almost presaged but the US and Western countries still tried to urge and make it happen as planned. This intention was more evident in the statement made by the US Secretary of State at the Geneva II Conference that Washington would not accept the presence of President Bashar al-Assad in the transitional government, and the US has was considering all solutions for resolving the conflict in Syria, including a military one.

A “life and death struggle” War at the Geneva II Conference

After a long delay, on 22 January 2014, the Geneva II Conference was convened in Switzerland with the participants from 30 countries. This was the first time, representatives of both Syrian government and opposition faction faced each other at the negotiating table, instead of the battlefield. Contrasting to the expectations of the international community, right from the first day, the conference was hopeless and came to a deadlock. At the conference, the US and Western countries and their regional allies pursued the use of this forum to legalize the voice of the opposition force. At the same time, they made full use of the presence of the opposition force at this international forum to condemn and make accusation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, aimed at defame his reputation and putting him out of political evolution in Syria, especially in the context of an upcoming presidential election in Syria in April 2014. Therefore, right from the first round of negotiation, the Geneva II Conference was profoundly divided by the two factions. The first one, composed of Syrian opposition forces, supported by the US and allies, insisted on expunging President Bashar al-Assad from the list of components of the transitional government in Syria;  even voicing that the opposition forces “were trying to make effort in the war to combat terrorism”. This is totally contrary to the fact (over the past three years) that opposition forces in Syria are composed of various components, most of whom are international terrorists from various countries, including the terrorism network of Al Qaeda, who have conducted the war of terrorism  against the supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, the US and Western countries also considered the Muslim Front the force superseding Damascus government and the representative of Syria at the Geneva II Conference. Therefore, their utmost aim at the conference was to eliminate President Bashar al-Assad and to pave the way for a new form of intervention. The second one, composed of the representatives of the Syrian government, supported by Russia and some countries, proposed that the two sides negotiate and seek for common voice to resolve the crisis, simultaneously, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be an indissoluble part in the political transition in Syria, and the fate of  Syrian President be determined by the Syrian people.

While diplomatic efforts came to a deadlock, the US and its allies intensely supplied Syrian opposition forces with modern weapons to conduct the bloody war of terrorism against the pro-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad forces. Thus, the current struggle in Syria occurs simultaneously in two fronts, in which development in the diplomatic front is likely to be determined by the situation in the battlefield. That is why, the impasse and breakdown of the Geneva II Conference might be an opportunity for outside forces to intervene more deeply and totally into Syria and to support the opposition forces to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad, rather than a goodwill toward a political solution for the crisis in Syria. According to analysts, in order to break the deadlock of the Geneva II Conference and seek for a political solution for the crisis in Syria, it is critical that outside forces stop their intervention into Syria’s internal affairs and let the Syrian people determine their future themselves.

Colonel Le The Mau