Select Page

Even a ‘Diplomat’s Diplomat’ Can’t Solve Syria’s Civil War #SyriaWar

Even a ‘Diplomat’s Diplomat’ Can’t Solve Syria’s Civil War <a class="hashtagger" href="">#SyriaWar</a>

If the only thing you knew about Syria was UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura’s briefing to the Security Council this month, you might assume dramatic events were afoot.

There had been an important meeting in Istanbul, he said, while equally vital summits in Astana, Kazakhstan, and of the G-20 countries in Buenos Aires, were in the offing. The work underway was “absolutely urgent,” he told the council, and the coming weeks “will be of crucial importance.”

Outside of such briefings, however, there is no suspense about the outcome of the Syrian war. President Bashar al-Assad, with the help of his Russian and Iranian allies, has used brute force to pacify the majority of the country. Half of the Syrian population have fled their homes, and the violence reached such a fever pitch that the United Nations lost count of the number of lives claimed by the war. The prospects for de Mistura’s peace plan are non-existent—Assad is not about to relinquish his hard-won battlefield gains at the negotiating table.

The Swedish-Italian diplomat’s tenure is emblematic of the international community’s struggles to grapple with Syria. His term provides a window into the forces that have made the conflict so resistant to diplomacy, and has served as a launching point for a debate among analysts and would-be peacemakers about diplomats’ role in resolving the world’s worst crises.

De Mistura is the diplomat’s diplomat. He is known for his dapper suits and pince-nez spectacles, speaks seven languages, and has worked for the United Nations over a four decade-long career that has taken him from Sudan to Kosovo, from Iraq to Afghanistan. When he leaves his post in December, he will have served as the face of UN diplomacy in Syria for over 1,600 days. The combined tenure of his two predecessors, by comparison, was roughly half that long. His defenders often point to this fact as a point in his favor, praising his perseverance in such a thankless task. (De Mistura, through a spokesman, declined an interview request for this article.)

To his detractors, however, de Mistura’s only legacy is presiding over an effort that has grown increasingly divorced from reality. Mouin Rabbani, who briefly served as the head of de Mistura’s political affairs unit, and another of the envoy’s former aides, who declined to be identified, described the diplomatic track that he oversees as a Syrian version of the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process”—an effort that exists mainly in the minds of a cottage industry of diplomats. Nearly every ceasefire championed by de Mistura has collapsed, and he proved largely powerless to negotiate the entry of aid to areas besieged by Assad’s government. He is accused of lending his imprimatur to a diplomatic charade, even as the Syrian government and its allies conducted a scorched earth policy against rebel-held parts of the country.

De Mistura came to office in summer 2014, when U.S. and European diplomats were coming to terms with the fact that their initial assumptions about the course of the Syrian war had been badly misguided. Assad’s regime had proved considerably stronger than many had predicted. De Mistura’s predecessor, Lakhdar Brahimi, advised the Syrian president in their first meeting that he should adhere to a recent international communiqué and declare that he was willing to resign if it was in the country’s best interest, said Mokhtar Lamani, the head of Brahimi’s office in Damascus. Relations were strained for the rest of Brahimi’s tenure.

Also read:  TURKEY: U.S. is Giving Weapons to Terror Group in Syria #SyriaWar

From the start, de Mistura vowed to cultivate better ties with Damascus. “What he wanted to do is build trust with the Russians and the regime,” said Wael al-Zayat, a former State Department official who worked on Syria with de Mistura. “His approach was: don’t be confrontational, don’t call out the Russians and the regime for their violations.”

In his public statements, de Mistura struck a relentlessly optimistic note about the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough. He touted a potentially “historic junction” for peace in 2016, said that the train for diplomacy was “warming up its engine” in 2017, and vowed to “strike while the iron is hot” for negotiations in 2018. Meanwhile, he kept repeating a mantra-like assertion that there was no military solution: “The one constant in this violently unpredictable conflict is that neither side will win,” he told the Security Council in September 2016.

About The Author

Sigma Selected

Sigma Selected are independent of the news-gathering side of our organization.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Allies of World War I, Bashar al-Assad, Staffan de Mistura, Syrian Civil War
Istanbul Summit’s Call for a Political Resolution in Syria
Was the Recent Istanbul Summit’s Call for a Political Resolution in Syria Realistic? #SyriaWar

The Istanbul summit was only marginally about a political solution in Syria (on which no new breakthroughs were achieved), and...