Biden Advised to Hold Negotiations with Preconditions with Assad

Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) talk with members of US forces in Darbasiya, Syria. (Reuters)
Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) talk with members of US forces in Darbasiya, Syria. (Reuters)
TT

Biden Advised to Hold Negotiations with Preconditions with Assad

Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) talk with members of US forces in Darbasiya, Syria. (Reuters)
Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) talk with members of US forces in Darbasiya, Syria. (Reuters)

Before US President Joe Biden could complete his “Syria team”, Washington was bombarded by demands during its transitional period to opt for a new approach to tackle the war-torn country. Among them is a phased approach with Damascus based on negotiations with president Bashar Assad.

Kurdish romance
So far, among the appointments to the team is Brett McGurk, who has been selected as coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council. McGurk was previously described by Ankara as the new Lawrence of Arabia due to his sympathy with the Kurds in their plight against Turkey. In fact, one of the main reasons that prompted his resignation from the previous administration was Donald Trump’s “abandonment” of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces – Washington’s key ally in the fight against ISIS – when he declared that he was pulling out American troops from Syria.

McGurk will be joined by Zahra Bell, who was in charge of facilitating inter-Kurdish Syrian dialogue to boost stability in the region, which boasts some 500 American soldiers, who in turn support 100,000 SDF fighters. The SDF controls a fourth of Syria’s territory and about 80 percent of its resources, making it a valuable asset for Washington in negotiations with Moscow, Tehran, Damascus and Ankara.

Questions remain over who will be named US special representative for Syria to succeed James Jeffery and Joel Rayburn. Questions have also been raised as to whether the Syria file will be handled by the National Security Council or whether the Secretary of State will adopt a more hands-on approach, like the one taken by Mike Pompeo and his team. Pompeo advocated the “maximum pressure” economic, political and military policy against Damascus and pushed for its continued political Arab and western isolation.

On the margin
There appears to be consensus that the Syrian conflict will not be high on Biden’s list of priorities. The new administration appears to be focused on the strained ties with Russia and efforts to return to the Iran nuclear deal.

Even though Syria will likely to remain on the margin, numerous articles, researches and studies have been published, suggesting a new American approach to the conflict. Former US Ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford was among the first to declare that the US policy in Syria had “failed” in achieving it declared goals. Writing to Foreign Policy, he said that it has only succeeded in the fight against ISIS. He suggested that Washington cooperate with Russia and Turkey in Syria even though those two countries often go it alone in tackling several issues in the conflict.

Meanwhile, Lebanese, Syrian and western figures appealed to Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron to lift sanctions against Damascus. In a letter to the two leaders, they urged them to adopt a new approach.

Former US ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, meanwhile, sprung a surprise by calling for a new American approach in Syria. The official is known for being one of Assad’s fiercest critics, so his article, with Hrair Balian, in Responsible Statescraft raised a few eyebrows when he noted that the Biden administration “has an opportunity to re-evaluate US policy on Syria, prioritizing diplomacy to advance our interests.”

“One of us (Feltman) has been known for years as a strong critic of Syrian president Bashar Assad and Syria’s domestic and external policies. The other (Balian) has been a strong critic of the notion that pressure alone will change what we consider to be problematic behavior,” they added.

Two options
“Our policy differences, especially regarding Assad remain strong, making our joint recommendation that much more significant. Indeed, we agree that, with the exception of confronting the ISIS threat in northeast Syria, US policy since 2011 has failed to produce positive results – and that a pivot is necessary,” they said.

“US interests in Syria include eliminating the threat posed by terrorist groups, preventing the use and proliferation of chemical weapons, and alleviating the suffering of millions of civilians whose lives have been shattered by the combination of war, repression, corruption and sanctions,” they added.

“Current US policy — centered on isolating and sanctioning Syria — has succeeded in crippling the country’s already war-ravaged economy, but it has failed to produce behavioral change … Instead, these policies contributed to Syria’s deepening reliance on Russia and Iran,” they remarked.

“The United States is now confronted with a choice between the current approach, which has succeeded only in contributing to a festering failed state, or a reconceived diplomatic process that aims to develop a detailed framework for engaging the Syrian government on a limited set of concrete and verifiable steps, which, if implemented, will be matched by targeted assistance and sanctions adjustments from the United States and EU,” they stressed.

The Carter Center provided a framework for a phased approach to the conflict. It is based on interviews with US, European, Russian and UN officials, analysts at think tanks and universities, and Syrians from across the country’s multiple political divides. It suggested that Washington exempt efforts to combat COVID-19 in Syria from its sanctions. It also proposed facilitating the rebuilding of civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools, and the gradual easing of American and European sanctions on condition that these steps should not be taken before Damascus makes tangible steps from its end.

Damascus is required to release detained political detainees, ensure the safe and dignified return of refugees to their homes, protect civilians and ensure the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to all regions. It must eliminate all of its chemical weapons arsenal in line with the 2013 agreement, carry out political and security reforms, including demonstrate goodwill at the Geneva talks, and adopt decentralized governance.

No gift to Damascus
Supporters of this approach believe that the majority of countries have years ago abandoned their demand for Assad to step down. And yet, these countries have continued to adopt their policy of pressure and isolation that has failed to achieve any reform.

“The escalating economic crisis, coupled with rising concern over the current trajectory in Syria, may present an opportunity to test an alternative, more pragmatic approach. This would defer resolution of the most contentious issues while focusing instead on a more limited set of reforms in return for reconstruction assistance and sanctions relief. The aim would be to stabilize the current situation in Syria and build some forward momentum for a larger diplomatic process to end the warm” said the report.

“For US and European policymakers, the Syrian government’s human rights record and its close alignment with geopolitical adversaries Russia and Iran make engagement politically hazardous, especially without evidence that it would lead to meaningful concessions. By comparison, continuing to isolate Syria is commonly perceived as a low-cost, low-risk strategy that avoids rewarding the government for crimes committed over the course of the war,” it added.

“The current diplomatic approach is leading nowhere, or worse. While conditions may not yet be in place for productive negotiations, the August 2020 visit by two senior US officials to Damascus to obtain the release of US citizens held in Syria has at least opened the door to explore new avenues for dialogue, possibly on broader issues,” it noted.

Critics of the new approach say that it lacks geopolitical depth, especially in regards to the Iranian and Turkish presence in Syria.



Legal Threats Close in on Israel's Netanyahu, Could Impact Ongoing Wars

The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
TT

Legal Threats Close in on Israel's Netanyahu, Could Impact Ongoing Wars

The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT
The International Criminal Court (ICC) building is pictured on November 21, 2024 in The Hague. (Photo by Laurens van PUTTEN / ANP / AFP) / Netherlands OUT

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces legal perils at home and abroad that point to a turbulent future for the Israeli leader and could influence the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, analysts and officials say.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) stunned Israel on Thursday by issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense chief Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the 13-month-old Gaza conflict. The bombshell came less than two weeks before Netanyahu is due to testify in a corruption trial that has dogged him for years and could end his political career if he is found guilty. He has denied any wrongdoing. While the domestic bribery trial has polarized public opinion, the prime minister has received widespread support from across the political spectrum following the ICC move, giving him a boost in troubled times.
Netanyahu has denounced the court's decision as antisemitic and denied charges that he and Gallant targeted Gazan civilians and deliberately starved them.
"Israelis get really annoyed if they think the world is against them and rally around their leader, even if he has faced a lot of criticism," said Yonatan Freeman, an international relations expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
"So anyone expecting that the ICC ruling will end this government, and what they see as a flawed (war) policy, is going to get the opposite," he added.
A senior diplomat said one initial consequence was that Israel might be less likely to reach a rapid ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon or secure a deal to bring back hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza.
"This terrible decision has ... badly harmed the chances of a deal in Lebanon and future negotiations on the issue of the hostages," said Ofir Akunis, Israel's consul general in New York.
"Terrible damage has been done because these organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas ... have received backing from the ICC and thus they are likely to make the price higher because they have the support of the ICC," he told Reuters.
While Hamas welcomed the ICC decision, there has been no indication that either it or Hezbollah see this as a chance to put pressure on Israel, which has inflicted huge losses on both groups over the past year, as well as on civilian populations.
IN THE DOCK
The ICC warrants highlight the disconnect between the way the war is viewed here and how it is seen by many abroad, with Israelis focused on their own losses and convinced the nation's army has sought to minimize civilian casualties.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said the ICC move would likely harden resolve and give the war cabinet license to hit Gaza and Lebanon harder still.
"There's a strong strand of Israeli feeling that runs deep, which says 'if we're being condemned for what we are doing, we might just as well go full gas'," he told Reuters.
While Netanyahu has received wide support at home over the ICC action, the same is not true of the domestic graft case, where he is accused of bribery, breach of trust and fraud.
The trial opened in 2020 and Netanyahu is finally scheduled to take the stand next month after the court rejected his latest request to delay testimony on the grounds that he had been too busy overseeing the war to prepare his defense.
He was due to give evidence last year but the date was put back because of the war. His critics have accused him of prolonging the Gaza conflict to delay judgment day and remain in power, which he denies. Always a divisive figure in Israel, public trust in Netanyahu fell sharply in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas assault on southern Israel that caught his government off guard, cost around 1,200 lives.
Israel's subsequent campaign has killed more than 44,000 people and displaced nearly all Gaza's population at least once, triggering a humanitarian catastrophe, according to Gaza officials.
The prime minister has refused advice from the state attorney general to set up an independent commission into what went wrong and Israel's subsequent conduct of the war.
He is instead looking to establish an inquiry made up only of politicians, which critics say would not provide the sort of accountability demanded by the ICC.
Popular Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth said the failure to order an independent investigation had prodded the ICC into action. "Netanyahu preferred to take the risk of arrest warrants, just as long as he did not have to form such a commission," it wrote on Friday.
ARREST THREAT
The prime minister faces a difficult future living under the shadow of an ICC warrant, joining the ranks of only a few leaders to have suffered similar humiliation, including Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic.
It also means he risks arrest if he travels to any of the court's 124 signatory states, including most of Europe.
One place he can safely visit is the United States, which is not a member of the ICC, and Israeli leaders hope US President-elect Donald Trump will bring pressure to bear by imposing sanctions on ICC officials.
Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for national security advisor, has already promised tough action: "You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January,” he wrote on X on Friday. In the meantime, Israeli officials are talking to their counterparts in Western capitals, urging them to ignore the arrest warrants, as Hungary has already promised to do.
However, the charges are not going to disappear soon, if at all, meaning fellow leaders will be increasingly reluctant to have relations with Netanyahu, said Yuval Shany, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute.
"In a very direct sense, there is going to be more isolation for the Israeli state going forward," he told Reuters.