When the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, it had all the makings of a monumental catastrophe. The Secretary-General at the time, Ban Ki-moon, was not the same kind of jet-setting international peace negotiator as his predecessor, Kofi Annan. So Ban made a wise decision: he tapped the former Secretary-General to be his special envoy for Syria.
At the time, Annan was riding high as an ex-diplomat, having successfully negotiated a political settlement to a deadly and high-stakes internal conflict in Kenya.
Annan served as Syria envoy for less than a year but managed to secure the “Geneva Communiqué,” which eventually to the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2254 three years later. The resolution is significant because it outlines a process for negotiating a democratic transition for Syria. However, this process remained dormant for most of the last decade, making the resolution worth little more than the paper on which it was written — until now. (More on that below the fold.)
Despite getting this agreement on paper, Kofi Annan’s peace plan was never embraced by the key protagonists, and he resigned his post in protest over the lack of international consensus on a path forward for Syria. “Without serious, purposeful, and united international pressure, including from the powers of the region, it is impossible for me, or anyone, to compel the Syrian government, in the first place, and also the opposition, to take the steps necessary to begin a political process,” he said when announcing his resignation as UN envoy. “You have to understand: as an envoy, I can’t want peace more than the protagonists, more than the Security Council, or the international community for that matter.”
That lack of international cooperation on Syria endured for most of the last fourteen years. Nevertheless, Ban Ki-moon tapped the next best person to a former Secretary-General: the legendary Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, who was globally renowned for his peacemaking and mediation experience. Alas, the fundamental geopolitical rift over Syria made even this legendary diplomat’s task impossible. Brahimi eventually resigned and was replaced by the less well-known (but deeply experienced) Swiss diplomat Staffan de Mistura, who served in the role from 2014 to 2018, before being succeeded by the current UN Syria envoy, Geir Pedersen.
Pedersen is an experienced diplomat who has served in senior roles in the Norwegian diplomatic corps, including as Norway’s ambassador to China and as part of the Norwegian team that facilitated the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO in the early 1990s. He has held various senior UN roles in the Middle East for nearly 20 years before being tapped for his current position in 2018.
For most of his tenure, Pedersen’s hands were tied due to the same dynamics that Kofi Annan identified in his resignation letter. That was, until Sunday, when Assad fled to Moscow.
Now, Geir Pedersen is suddenly the central diplomat managing the international response to Syria’s political transition.
On Tuesday, he gave his first press conference since Assad’s ouster. The press conference was brief—just 19 minutes—but it revealed key insights about the current state of Syria’s transition and a potential path forward.
Here are three key takeaways from Pedersen’s remarks in Geneva.
Pedersen revealed that he received a message from Syria’s ambassador to the UN, a holdover from the Assad regime. Interestingly, Pederson emphasized that the Syrian ambassador was representing not the old regime but the new authority in Damascus. “When I briefed the Security Council yesterday, I received a message from the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations in New York. And he was then addressing me on behalf of the authorities in Damascus. So that is still functioning,” Pederson said.
This is significant because it shows there is a degree of coherent cooperation on the international diplomatic front between the deposed regime and the de-facto authorities, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This further suggests that HTS is cooperating with elements of the former regime in a pragmatic effort to keep the government functioning. HTS has pledged to do this, and this is one piece of evidence indicating they are following through with that pledge—so far, at least.
The de-facto authorities are currently designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations for their links to al-Qaeda. HTS has since renounced al-Qaeda, but the designation remains a significant obstacle, which Pedersen admitted complicates his work. However, Pederson hinted that the designation may soon be reconsidered.
“You have to look at the facts and see what has happened during the last nine years. It is nine years since that resolution was adopted, and the reality so far is that HTS and also the other armed groups have been sending good messages to the Syrian people; they have been sending messages of unity, of inclusiveness, and frankly speaking, we are also seeing in Aleppo and in Hama, you know, reassuring things on the ground,” he said.
The real challenge, however, may lie in the days and weeks to come. “The most important test will be how the transitional arrangements in Damascus are organized and implemented. If they are really inclusive of all the different groups and communities, then I think the international community will look at de-listing HTS,” he said.
Since Sunday, Israel has undertaken several military actions inside Syria. These include moving personnel into strategic locations in the Golan Heights, bombing suspected chemical and conventional weapons depots, and destroying Syria’s small navy. From an Israeli perspective, it is understandable why the government might seize the opportunity created by chaos in Syria to take defensive actions. However, from the perspective of a peaceful political transition in Syria, these moves are profoundly unhelpful: just as hundreds of thousands of people are returning home after years of displacement, the country remains under the threat of bombs and missile strikes. These ongoing (and heavy) bombardments by Israel add a degree of unpredictability to an already volatile situation.
“We are continuing to see Israeli movement and bombardments into Syria,” Pedersen said. “This needs to stop. This is extremely important.”
As Pederson noted, the situation on the ground is fluid. Things can change on a dime. But as of now, there seems to be a genuine opportunity for a peaceful transition in Syria.
Kofi Annan is no longer alive to see this day. But 12 years after his proposed peace plan, it is suddenly relevant again.
“The United States reaffirms its full support for a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition. This transition process should lead to credible, inclusive, and non-sectarian governance that meets international standards of transparency and accountability, consistent with the principles of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254,” said Tony Blinken shortly after Pedersen’s remarks in Geneva.
As I’ve written before, Syria was the conflict that broke the Security Council. But these remarks from Pedersen, bolstered by events on the ground, are mostly encouraging signs that (though tenuous) Syria is on a decent path towards a peaceful transition.