We should give the Geneva II talks a chance

Thankfully peace talks are under way to find a solution to end the horrific turmoil in Syria. After several hitches, and fierce rhetoric at the opening session in Montreux, the negotiating teams have started their work in Geneva.

It is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects of agreement at the talks, known as Geneva II, but it is significant that in Montreux the warring factions sat in the same room for the first time. Now the UN is hosting the talks, where the participants will not talk directly to each other but through the UN officials. The UN experts are likely to be looking for common ground, be it for local ceasefires or the creation of corridors for desperately needed humanitarian access.

But their ultimate aim is to achieve what was set out in the Geneva communiqué of 2012 and UN security resolution 2118. This is to secure a transition to a new governing body for Syria. This was made very clear in the invitation to participants sent by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon.

Last week I chaired a meeting of Labour MPs addressed by Monzer Akbik, a senior representative of the moderate Syrian National Coalition. He spoke movingly about what the Syrian people have been through. How the regime turned things violent with their brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors. How thousands have been killed, many more terribly injured. We all saw this for ourselves in the recent report from three former war crimes prosecutors which provided gruesome photo graphic evidence of 11,000 dead bodies that had been tortured. On the borders of Syria millions languish in refugee camps not knowing when they will be able to return to their homes. Those unlucky enough to remain in Syria live in squalid conditions, uncertain of where their next meal will come from. And in a new low, we have seen the use of chemical weapons by a regime against its own people.

The Geneva communiqué that the talks are based on was quite clear. It stated that ‘it offers a perspective for the future that can be shared by all in Syria’ and ‘establishes clear steps according to a firm timetable towards the realisation of that perspective’. The requirement is for the ‘establishment of a transnational governing body with full executive powers’, which should be ‘formed on the basis of mutual consent’. This is clearly incompatible with Assad staying in power, however much he and his henchmen may want to. The final objective is a new Syria, where there is participation of all groups and segments of society in a meaningful national dialogue, a review of the constitutional order and legal system and finally free and fair multi party elections.

We were all impressed by Akbik’s sincerity. The coalition had their disagreements before attending the talks, but they are a democratic body, so this should not surprise us. Their delegates are likely to come face to face with people they believe are responsible for deaths of their friends and family. Many will have faced imprisonment and even torture. They are not professional politicians, but they have the knowledge and experience to deliver the objectives of the Geneva communiqué. This could take months, even years, but if they can succeed it could deliver a Syria where the people can live in freedom and not the day-to-day fear of the bullet and the bomb. That is a certainly a vision worth struggling for.