Syria is being wracked by two wars. One, between President Bashar Assad and groups like the Free Syrian Army, can be resolved only through a diplomatic solution — precisely the kind of solution that the peace talks in Vienna, involving a wide range of world powers and regional actors, are aiming to reach. The second, being waged by Daesh, will require a very different approach.
Daesh’s brutal terrorist attacks in Beirut and Paris (not to mention its fighters’ barbaric behavior within Syria and Iraq) make plain that there can be no talking to — much less compromising with — its leaders. No political, diplomatic, or territorial arrangement with such a group can be justified.
To be sure, diplomacy will be needed in this fight. Just as war is often an element of diplomacy, diplomacy can sometimes be an element of war. In the war against Daesh, diplomacy will be vital to galvanize an alliance of countries dedicated to the group’s complete eradication — which will, however, have to happen on the battlefield.
Daesh, all relevant countries must agree, has no legitimate role to play anywhere. This is not just a matter of presenting a united front. As much as some would like to pin the blame for fueling Daesh’s rise on the failure of Iraq’s Shiite leaders to engage in sufficient Sunni outreach, this explanation is far from complete. To be sure, there were certainly no Nelson Mandelas among the ranks of Iraq’s admittedly clumsy and often reckless Shiite leadership. But if Daesh were simply a vehicle for Sunni struggle against Shiite rule, the conflict would not have expanded well beyond Shiite-populated areas.
It is time for the Muslim world to act more resolutely toward the brutal movement. As for the civil war between Assad and his opponents, the Vienna talks offer reason for cautious optimism. The talks are not the beginning of the end of the Syrian conflict; they may not even be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the end of the beginning. But they amount to a serious step toward a much-needed diplomatic approach to resolving this aspect of the conflict — not least because many of the right players, from the US and the EU to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, are participating in the process.
Still, the talks are far from perfect. Although it is too early to be critical of the effort, it is not too soon to highlight some potential concerns.
For starters, while elections are a laudable objective of the talks, they should not be the only one. Syria has many minorities whose numbers are too small to secure representation through the ballot box, and thus need to be protected by other means, such as political arrangements and institutions aimed explicitly at guaranteeing minority rights. The first pillar of democracy may be majority rule, but it is a hollow — and unstable — achievement if the second pillar, minority rights, is not also put in place.
In times of crisis, countries have a way of forgetting the lessons of past crises. This month marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian War. That momentous step, which ended a brutal conflict in which civilians were disproportionately targeted, emerged from a two-step process. First, an international “contact group” agreed on a framework for peace. Then, the parties directly involved in the conflict were brought in to reach agreement within the framework.
That may sound patronizing, but it worked. Rather than getting distracted by some sense of wounded pride, those who have engaged in a conflict that has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displaced millions more should decide to do what it takes to end the mayhem. Perhaps then everyone can turn their attention to crushing Daesh once and for all.
n The writer is former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia. ©Project Syndicate
