Four years into the Syrian Civil War, the UN General Assembly is discussing the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict, with British Premier David Cameron and others suggesting more openness to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad remaining in power for a “transition” period.
Russia has been pushing this idea all along, advocating a “unity” government in Syria including the existing government and secular rebels, but has until the past few weeks faced enormous resistance from Western nations, and as recently as mid-September US officials were insisting they and Britain were agreed that Assad had to immediately go.
Syrian officials have long expressed openness to this sort of negotiation, though Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem today appeared dismissive of the prospect, saying he doubted after all the fighting that has gone diplomacy could lead to a real end of the war.
Indeed, much of the fighting over the Syrian talks right now is which nations will be allowed to participate, with the US said to be trying to exclude Western European nations for the talks on the grounds they aren’t “directly involved” in the war. Either way, factions that control most of Syria, ISIS and al-Qaeda, almost certainly will not be invited, which suggests that any deal will be limited to only a fraction of the overall war.
The only reason "Assad has to go" is because he is an Iranian ally and was a buffer against an Israeli attack against Iran, isn't it?
Keeping Assad until Putin is solidly bogged down is a good idea.
Assad is supported by many, many Syrians. The Christians were protected by his government from the islamic radicals. Assad could have cut and run when the going got tough, but like a good captain of a sinking ship, he has stayed to protect his people and will not flee and leave them to the wolves.
I suspect that after Putin rescues Syria from the rebels and ISIS and the other crazies, Assad will step down in a negotiated deal. Hopefully the U.S. will keep its nose out of any deal made for Syria.
mighty white of the brits and americans to "allow" the elected
leader of the syrian government to "negotiate" away his
position. of course, negotiations to the americans simply
means you must agree to their postion, as "all options
remain on the table" indefinitely.
Interesting that Washington wants to exclude the Europeans on grounds "they aren’t 'directly involved' in the war," even though France has been bombing ISIS and the UK recently conducted a drone strike that killed two British citizens. But Washington is not excluding itself. Therefore, Washington is admitting its involvement in the war goes much further than just air strikes.
I'm not sure what Washington gains by excluding Europe. I'm sure Europe is giving Washington an earful already and it's more that just Cameron saying Assad can stay during negotiations. I hope they are telling Washington that if Turkey invades Syria and Russia bombs Turkish troops in Syria, it is Turkish aggression and not Russian aggression against Turkey's territory, and does not trigger a NATO response.