A war zone that may be a great unifier
In enabling a peace deal for Syria, a coalition of countries that are not yet directly involved in the crisis could be very helpful
Aglobal security crisis of historic proportions is raging in West Asia, and spreading by the day, as millions of refugees flee Syria and Iraq. The crisis is now affecting not just all of Syria’s immediate neighbours, straining their resources and exacerbating tensions; it now directly involves all the current permanent members of the Security Council except China. It is time for all would-be permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — namely, India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Egypt — to step up.
The desire for a settlement that could end the Syrian civil war is palpable; but just what that settlement would look like remains open to debate — or to further conflict. Indeed, Russia and the US are circling each other like boxers before the contest begins, supporting different factions and trying to ensure that their allies in the multi-sided conflict are advancing, or at least holding ground.
The need for broad cooperation — and the support of the entire UN Security Council — is apparent. That is why US Secretary of State John Kerry is talking to the Russians, the Saudis and the Turks to build support for a new round of talks. And the UN and Arab League’s special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has created a set of working groups, chaired by Europeans, to ‘create a framework for concrete talks between Syria’s government and opposition’.
In enabling a peace deal, a coalition of countries that are not yet directly involved in the crisis could be very helpful. Such a coalition — involving, say, Germany, India, Japan, Brazil, and Egypt — could increase the pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to negotiate by convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin that the world is watching his deal-making efforts closely and that his prestige is on the line.
Moreover, coalition members could convince other relevant regional players to push for a lasting peace. Germany, for example, already recognises that the only long-term solution to Europe’s refugee influx lies in eliminating the need to flee. German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier travelled to Turkey in September to help broker a deal on keeping refugees in Turkey, in exchange for restarting talks on Turkish accession to the European Union. The other countries have yet to take action. But they, too, have plenty of motivation — and plenty to offer.
India, as well as Pakistan, has a great deal to gain from strengthening West Asian trade, energy, and investment ties. Since the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, India has been contemplating renewing the plan for an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, with the participation of China and Russia.
India has a strong relationship with Iran, with India now funding an overhaul of the Iranian port of Chabahar, which will give it direct access to Afghanistan. This places India in a strong position to push Iran to put pressure on Assad. Likewise, India can leverage its relationship with Russia — it remains a major importer of Russian arms — to help drive progress.
Japan’s potential contribution involves Iran, with which Japan has lately been pursuing a closer relationship. Recently, the Japanese and Iranian foreign ministers agreed to begin negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. Japan also wants to speed up the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal, so that it can take advantage of the resulting business opportunities.
A bonus here is that Japanese and Indian interest in the Syrian peace process could spur China to play an active role in reaching, rather than blocking, a solution. But if Iran is to rejoin the international community, it must play a constructive role in its region.
Brazil is also in a position to help. Not only does it have substantial ties with Russia; it is also linked to Turkey, exemplified by the two countries’ 2010 effort to broker a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme.
Moreover, in 2011, Brazil put forward a concept paper at the UN, outlining how countries seeking to implement the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine should behave. With the Syrian government — through its murder of tens of thousands of civilians — having more than fulfilled the criteria for triggering the international community’s obligation to intervene, Brazil could suggest what an intervention that reflected the principle of “responsibility while protecting” might look like.
Finally, Egypt — a perennial candidate for a permanent or rotating African seat in a reformed UN Security Council — has important relationships throughout the region, particularly with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries that are directly supporting some Syrian opposition groups. The government of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has emphasised the need for a comprehensive political settlement, is supporting Assad tacitly, but is also concerned deeply about the Islamic State. Egyptian diplomats are thus excellent candidates to exert pressure for compromise.
Many of these countries’ governments might say that the Syrian conflict is too far away to affect them directly. But global leadership does not simply mean enjoying the prestige that accompanies presumed power. The UN Charter requires countries to use their power to identify “any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression,” and to decide which measures must be taken “to maintain or restore international peace and security.”