Peace Talks with Syria: For Better or For Worse?

Syria has proven to be further evidence of how the world of politics can change dramatically in a small amount of time. At present, foreign direct military involvement in Syria now seems increasingly unlikely. The rejection of involvement by the British parliament severely dented the momentum of those wishing to intervene amongst the international community. American politicians supporting military engagement, led by President Barack Obama, have seemed more defensive of their stance lately and are fighting to plead their case. This comes as the American public, like the British, similarly seems to be afflicted by wariness of further American military engagement in international affairs. However, the process took an unexpected turn after American Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the United States was willing to negotiate instead of attack if it could achieve its goals peacefully. This prompted the Russian response of encouraging Syria to destroy its own chemical weapons- a process which could be verified by UN weapons inspectors, which would thus achieve the goal of removing the contentious weapons, that was stated as the primary motivation behind military involvement. This is the route currently being pursued by international leaders involved in the Syrian conflict.

The removal of these weapons, which breach internationally-agreed laws of weapons use, would doubtless be an outcome that would satisfy leaders who were disturbed by the threat these weapons posed. Moreover, on the other hand those that were more wary of the willingness of some countries to infringe the sovereignty of other states regardless of UN support, will also feel some relief that an alternative to military involvement is being pursued. However, whilst the use of chemical weapons would have been a clearer target for those wishing to intervene in Syria; the main motivation should always have been the moral imperative to prevent the Syrian government from launching attacks on its citizens on a vast scale- regardless of what weapons it was using. If military involvement is ruled out due to the removal of chemical weapons, then this effectively allows the Syrian government to resume attacking its own people through other means; with the international community returning to their position of criticising the Assad regime and vainly hoping for a diplomatic solution. This approach has been in place for the past two years with little to show for it. One wonders how this emerging stalemate in Syria will ultimately be resolved- particularly without external intervention.