The Geneva peace talks set to take place in bid to achieve political resolution in Syria, may have arisen at a time of mutual consensus for change globally. Europe’s response to mass migration of Syrian refugee’s highlight a pivotal time for progress in a country amidst civil unrest and highlights the global responsibility of the conditions of their civilians.
The stages of the peace talks include first what may be considered “proximity talks”, following a political settlement, and then what may be considered eventual peace. This may reflect the lengthy nature of the process set to last up to 6 months. They look to involve the unity of world leaders in an opportunity for political figures globally to demonstrate solidarity and solution.
The Syrian government evidenced being the first to put a team together of attendees for the Syrian peace talks in Geneva reflecting what may be considered a keen desire for a successful outcome from the political dialogue. However, the participation of opponents in Geneva may be considered pivotal to the outcome of the political discourse, with discussions of rebel groups attending and so may shed light on the sensitive nature in which the diplomatic negotiations may be handled.
However, the global unity in a desire for change in Syria highlights a worldwide interest in protecting the population of Syrian civilians, in which children and women in particular have been impacted by both the regime of IS as well as Western intervention. With the claim for Syrian territory yet to see an evident outcome, even with western involvement, indication for peace talks may have gone ahead in a further attempt to enable a structured resolution, negotiation and eventual peace.
Whilst key Western powers, particularly the United States, place a higher priority on overcoming IS in their presence within Syria, this may remain a global desire as well as a pivotal focus and may demonstrate the complex system of involvement which remains a prominent factor within the peace talks. The debate as to whether a western presence in Syria shall remain may reflect both a firm stance in countering terror for countries such as the UK, as well as what may be considered the likelihood of withdrawal.
The gravity of the talks may suggest the timing of any deal being reached or implemented in Geneva as immediate alongside the opposition will mean having to set conditions before the start of negotiations take place. These may be on a political transition in Syria, and may be a more formidable challenge than world powers have anticipated.
For a political settlement, there may be considered many alternative plans to continuing to work on a diplomatic front in trying to produce consensus and agreement among an increasing number of members including the Assad government, its Syrian and regional members, Russia, the different opposition groups as well as the United States, the Arab states and Turkey.
Presenting this international intervention via peace talks may have the ability to demonstrate a sense of hope for Syrian civilians who amid the conditions of their lives remain a sign of change. First, it may confirm a structure of diplomatic work organised within Geneva. Second, it may present alternative areas for displaced people to return once negotiated by neighbouring countries. Whilst only gradual action may take place, a dialogue for change may be key to evidencing the way in which productive negotiations may breed possibility.
The peace talks may have the ability to produce a sense of solidarity and momentum for change amongst countries in a unity that attempts to offer prospective resolutions, in which may lead to the start of organised humanitarian aid as well as long term progress for Syrian civilians.
How may peace talks evolve further resolutions for change in Syria?