As David Cameron and Barack Obama met last week to discuss, amongst other things, the unfolding crisis in Syria and what their possible next steps might be, it seems a good time to pause and consider whether negotiation can still play a role in a potential solution here.
Obama has been keen to stress that military action in Syria would be premature and could lead to all out civil war. There is an even more worrying concern that this could turn into a conflict which destabilises the whole region with evidence that the Sunni rebels are backed by their co-religionists in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Equally, Iran’s support for the Syrian regime has been well publicised and this could extend to active military support should the West intervene.
So what are the alternatives to military action? Unfortunately, it is impractical to consider negotiation at the moment. As a rule, when only one side wants to negotiate, it’s hard to conduct any meaningful discussions and this seems to be such a situation. In his own mind, maybe Assad still believes (as Gaddafi did before him) that he can win by sheer application of power alone. Or maybe the stern example of his father who ruthlessly held power before him inhibits him from contemplating genuine negotiations. Or maybe he just can’t see a negotiated way out of the current crisis, since any negotiation would involve a diminishment or removal of his powers which would leave him and his allies highly vulnerable.
What then are the options available to the West which might bring Assad to the table and/or force a regime change?
1. Encourage Russia and China to stop blocking UN action
These two […]
