Alwaght- The UN Security Council's efforts to manage the Syrian developments and find a settlement to the crisis are at dead end now, showing that the international body is incapable of directing the Syrian political and security case. This failure on the one hand is tied to the conditions dominating the structure of the UN that used to be considered as the most significant global security organization and on the other hand has something to do with a false look by the UN and UN-affiliated organizations at Syria. So, it appears that even in the future the Security Council and the UN as a whole will fail to influence the Syrian file for a calm of conflicts.
There are important points concerning the Syrian developments and the reasons behind failure of moves by the UN and the Security Council to end the crisis:
1. It is clear that the Security Council is suffering from conflicts inside itself. The US, Russia, and the EU relations that are based on aversion and setting limits ahead of each other, have practically plagued any influentiality by the Security Council, turning it into a ceremonial UN body. The relations of the three Western members of the Security Council, namely the US, France, and Britain with Russia have witnessed escalation of tensions following Ukraine’s conflict. Presently, the Western parties on the one hand and Russia– sometimes along with China– on the other hand disallow any plan at the Security Council that contains big interests for the opposite side or a limited loss for themselves or their allies. As a result, Security Council can only step in some insignificant cases, and if enters in important cases it has to spend time, several months or even several years, on negotiations for solutions. It frequently modifies its proposals to meet the effective sides’ demands, until in practice its resolutions become effecless.
Accordingly, some theorists believe that the life of the Security Council has ended and now decision making on important cases is a job of bilateral or multilateral entities that are necessarily not connected to the Security Council. The Syrian peace talks between Russia and the US as well as other Syrian conferences and tens of other cases take place according to this new norm. Some others suggest that Britain’s opposition to EU Amy plans is motivated by a view that sees end of time of traditional collective organizations, adding that this end is a prelude to a strategic change in the international decision making mechanism. Still some others argue that not only the EU but also the UN and the prominent NATO are also in danger of collapse within upcoming 5 to 10 years.
2. The Security Council and the secretary general of the UN take fully biased stances when it comes to the terrorist groups, something not only contributing to the terrorism but also has destroyed the mediatory nature of the UN and the Security Council.
Just a week ago in his opening address of the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the Syrian government as responsible for killing of people and so he uplifted spirits of the anti-Damascus terrorist groups that in past few weeks were dealt crushing blows in the battlefields. One or two days after Ki-moon’s address the Security Council sought ways to end conflict in Syria, but it naturally failed to do so. Obviously, the Security Council both due to a moral collapse and also because of an internal inconsistency is unable to affect the important and risky developments. Therefore, for a political settlement for Syria’s conflict the eyes must be shifted to another point.
3. The impasse in negotiations at the Security Council to a large extent is related to the deadlock in talks between its key members, Russia and the US. Washington for months, especially in past few weeks, has gone to great lengths to bring the different Syrian opposition sides to the negotiating table. It was successful in its efforts to some degree but its rhetoric and actions went in a way that ruined the Russia-US accord on Syria ceasefire. What was left were the Moscow-Washington officials' verbal clashes at the UN.
The recent events indicated that Washington only resorts to dialogue when it has already wrestled with the opposite side and failed to make gains. It actually refers to the negotiations to buy time to change the conditions on the ground. The Americans when exactly in the middle of negotiations find out that talks do not yield the favorable results leave them in a blink of an eye.
The US pushed Russia to influence the leading sides of the battlefield, namely the Syrian government and allies, to accept the 7 to 10- day truce in the embattled Aleppo in northwestern Syria. The Russians talked to Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Syria and so paved the way for the conditional agreement. Despite Moscow’s concerns, the ceasefire deal was finally inked. But when the US administration figured out that the ceasefire will bring forth no outcome but quietening the guns and the Syrian government will keep its upper hand on the ground during the truce, it launched airstrikes at Deir ez-Zor province in eastern Syria where Syria armed forces were stationed, killing and injuring hundreds of them, and opening the way for ISIS terrorists to attack an airport and the areas around and restore a fairly important position in the region, although the airport did not fall to them.
4. The US has recently talked about possible reactivation of the southern Syria front, insisting that this will pose a serious threat. The US military commander three days ago maintained that perhaps soon ISIS launches operation in Daraa and Quneitra, this is what pushes the US to intervene further in Syria. But if we consider the geographical features of the south Syria and its relative calm, we can infer that reignition of southern front is very likely a political bluff. It has to be taken into account that issue of reactivation of southern front comes while the Syrian army backed by the Resistance Axis is tightening the encirclement on the Aleppo-based terrorist groups. At the present time, southern and eastern Aleppo entirely are in the hands of the Syrian armed forces, as a large part of west of Aleppo has been recaptured by the army in recent days. The ceasefire deal was raised by the US essentially to pull al-Nusra Front and its affiliates out of the army-imposed blockade.
But aside from this issue there are reasons showing that the US army commander’s remarks are very likely a bluff. ISIS has announced Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria as its major battle spots and strongholds, and any shift of fighting from Raqqa will spoil its strategy in Syria. On the other side, Quneitra due to its small area and population cannot be an alternative to Aleppo with 5.3 million population and nearly 50,000 square kilometers of area. Moreover, Quneitra is close to the Israeli borders and any reignition of fronts there will require accepting fighting with the Israeli regime and so transfer of clashes and crisis from Syria to the central and northern occupied Palestinian territories.
The US is well aware that any movement by the terrorists in southern Syria will trigger special movement of Iran’s IRGC and Hezbollah forces. This means the Resistance camp’s forces will take advantage of anarchic conditions of the southern Syria battle. This comes while there is no guarantee that in this situation southern Lebanon, which is considered a Hezbollah’s hotspot and area of domination and operation, will not join Quneitra frontline and not drag the clashes to the Lebanese borders with the occupied Palestinian territories.
Another important issue is that military operations in south are easier, less costly, and quicker for the Syrian army and its backers because just unlike Aleppo, Quneitra has not a big population and it is easy for the government to evacuate the residents in critical conditions. This, in turn, facilitates easier anti-terror airstrikes, while in the northern areas this is not an easy job.
It must also be taken into consideration that the most significant challenge that causes the US fail to win the northern front is Washington’s inability to direct the operations on the ground and in other words lacking efficient allies in the battlefields. The US cannot fix this problem by relocation of fronts. Its operational potentials in south are less than those in north as it has the Incirlik Airbase in neighboring Turkey, used for strikes. Add to this the fact that the US-backed terrorists in southern Syria are less in number and position convenience than in north, as it is impossible to inject a huge number of terrorist forces in a short time in south.
Therefore, it must be noted that the US army after Washington’s failures in security and political processes has talked about something that is way beyond the American operational potentials.
The Syrian case has its own complexity and only those who can resist can set hope on a future for Syria. They need to bear the difficulties of the way. We should not forget that almost five years ago there was a consensus about the certainty of fall of the Syrian government and Damascus' separation from the Axis of Resistance, but now all agree that foreign pressures and terrorism cannot change Syria.
