Geneva: The United Nations (UN) is no longer using the phrase “political transition” to describe the goals of next week’s Syria peace talks, in a potentially major concession to negotiators representing President Bashar Al Assad.
“Political transition” is a phrase understood by the opposition to mean a removal of Al Assad or at least an erosion of his powers. But his government has rejected any suggestion that it could be on the table, and at previous peace talks in Geneva his negotiators consistently tried to steer away from it.
Yara Sharif, spokeswoman for UN envoy Staffan de Mistura, initially told a regular UN briefing in Geneva on Friday that the talks, due to start on February 23, would address the political transition.
“I think, yes, you can use the word ‘political transition’.
It is going to be a focus I guess as it has been in the past,” she said in response to a reporter’s question.
But she later sent an email to clarify her comment.
“This morning at the briefing I was asked about the intra-Syrian negotiations and whether the issue of political transition would be discussed,” she said.
“For clarification purposes, please note that the negotiations will be entirely guided by (UN) Security Council Resolution 2254, which talks specifically about governance, a new constitution and elections in Syria.” The December 2015 resolution was unanimously adopted as the basis for peace talks, which ran fitfully through the first months of 2016 but never resumed after the end of April.
The resolution says the UN Secretary-General should convene formal negotiations on “a political transition process on an urgent basis... with a view to a lasting political settlement of the crisis”. It also refers to previous international agreements which called for a transition.
But its description of the political process contains no mention of the phrase, setting out the aims as a new constitution, free and fair elections administered under supervision of the United Nations, and transparent and accountable governance.
The last set of UN-led Syria talks in Geneva ended in April last year, with de Mistura setting out a summary of what had been agreed so far and what next steps were needed.
“No one is doubting any more that there is an urgent need for a true and credible political transition,” the UN envoy said at the time. “You remember when the word transition, at least in certain area, was taboo? Not any more.”
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday faced a grilling by global peers seeking clarity on Washington’s position on the Syria conflict ahead of UN peace talks in Geneva. US allies, however, said they had won assurances from Tillerson that Washington backed a political solution to the Syria conflict.
Washington’s top diplomat joined a group of countries who support the Syrian opposition for talks on a way to end the nearly six-year war.
“All the participants want a political solution because a military solution alone won’t lead to peace in Syria,” German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters in Bonn, adding that “Tillerson became very involved in the debates”.
The meeting of the so-called “like-minded” nations — made up of around a dozen Western and Arab countries as well as Turkey — was the first since President Donald Trump took office.
Diplomats had said before the talks that they were hoping for clarity on whether there had been a change in US policy on Syria, particularly on the future of Al Assad.
The meeting came ahead of a new round of UN-led talks in Geneva on February 23 involving Syrian regime and rebel representatives.
Under Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, Washington insisted Assad had to go, putting it at odds with Moscow which has launched a military intervention in support of the Syrian leader.
But Trump has called for closer cooperation with Moscow in the fight against the Daesh terror group in Syria, downplaying what happens to Al Assad.
A Western diplomatic source said Tillerson had stated clearly in the meeting that “there would be no military cooperation with Russia until they distance themselves from Damascus’s stance on the opposition.”
