The next round of Syrian negotiations in Geneva, which started on November 30 2017 appeared doomed from the start.
BY OWN CORRESPONDENT
The opposition’s condition about removing the Syrian president from participating in preparations for political regularisation was taken negatively by the official side of the government delegation headed by B.Jaafari, a permanent representative of Syria to the United Nations in New York.
It is no wonder that the main person who is a special representative of the United Nations secretary general on Syrian affairs Staffan de Mistura supported the opposition’s demands.
Thanks to efforts of the Russian delegation, negotiations started.
They used the method adopted during the Astana talks where two delegations had talks “through the wall“ and stayed in different rooms. Mistura had to run from one negotiator to another…
Despite different political manoeuvres, ideas and initiatives both delegations came to a conclusion about further useless “dialogue“ and the delegation from Damascus left Geneva.
Mistura expressed hope to continue negotiations soon and persuaded members of opposition to stay in Geneva.
They did it waiting to continue the meeting but the crisis of “Genevs format“became evident for everyone.
In the Kazakhstan capital all stages of conversations had positive results. The main secret of successful result is in careful preparation, considered forum and responsibility of its organisers.
The participants at the talks had nowhere to go from persuasive initiatives of organisers with full respect to all participants.
Moreover, the role for Mistura was clearly define. He didn′t interfere with talks but played an important function as the coordinator.
Here he was at his best just like the last meeting in Astana had became international with participation of observers from powerful Arabian countries and other states.
We have to establish a fact that the eighth conference in Genèva was premature. The last time Russia effectively joined post military arrangement.
Moscow took with restraint insufficiently considered haste of Syrian opposition and its supporters (first of all, the USA and their alies that are not interested in political regularisation of Syrian crisis) about meeting in Geneva
From Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation point of view, it would be expedient to meet in Astana first, to discuss problem issues and create acommon position on four points (Constitution, transitional period and power, de-escalation zones , fight against terrorism).
After solving these issues they should organise common national Syrian forum to create the document with the main directions and stages of political regularization of crisis in the country.
Only Russia, Turkey and Iran managed to create effective mechanism to regulate crisis in Syria.