Alexander Gillespie: Three into one an unworkable equation for Syria peace

Syrian peace talks have failed as each of the three factions hold out for victory. Picture / AP

The second round of peace talks for Syria have now collapsed. The killing of 100,000 people and the exodus of 9.5 million people from their homes has not been sufficient reason to end the war in Syria or to restrain the barbarities with which it is being fought. This double failure will accelerate the death toll.

To put this into context, the conflict which decimated Afghanistan during the 1980s when the Soviets entered and kept the matter out of the hands of the Security Council for a decade cost about one million lives. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s consumed 100,000 people and would have been much more had the Security Council not intervened.

The Security Council is very unlikely to intervene in Syria because of the veto of both Russia and China. This war in Syria will now bleed out as three sides fight for total victory. The three sides to this equation are Assad, the moderate rebels, and the extremists fighting a jihad. Without international intervention, the human price in this conflict could easily match that in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

This triangle of opposing forces is the reason why the peace talks failed. The moderates are only a fraction of the opposition and although they want to transition to democracy and allow the rules of war to apply, there are both inconsistencies and significant limits on the influence they have on the ground.

The Assad regime have no intention of relinquishing power, because they believe that a firm hand is necessary to keep order and stability in the country. This is something they believe free and fair elections cannot achieve. They like to fight what they see as terror with reprisals which are illegal in international law. Assad's totalitarian view is directly from the worst parts of the 20th century.

The extremists share Assad's view that the country can only be governed by force. They have no faith in democracy either, preferring theology to provide their guiding principles. Assad knows that the West and Russia fear the jihadists more than they fear him. For this reason, Assad has helped grow the jihadists by allowing them fighters, supporting them financially and by focusing his military attention on the moderates. This is a clever tactic. In portraying the war as being against a greater evil, the moderate middle ground risks being sidelined and then crushed between the two extremes.

In this situation, the question becomes what to do next ? There are three answers to this. The first is that the moderates must be supported. This is an unpalatable suggestion to many people who indulge in wishful thinking that neutrality, non-intervention and endless talking is better than choosing sides. With this debate in our country and the question of allowing New Zealanders to fight in the conflict, it appears most political parties want to prevent all volunteers from joining. This blanket opposition fails to distinguish between the three groups. Two sides should not be supported. This is the Assad regime with its aversion to democracy and its long list of crimes against humanity and crimes of war. Neither should the religious-based terror groups, which are already prohibited under international law - and New Zealand is obliged to prevent our citizens joining.

The third group, the moderate middle ground, are not the same as the other two. However, we should not be naive. Even the moderates have blood on their hands. But they are better than the alternatives. This option will prolong the war. However, the longer term risks of allowing this group to be extinguished are much greater in human and political terms.

Second, the ideal of the territorial integrity of modern Syria should be abandoned. This is currently a war in which total victory cannot be achieved for any side. Political settlement and long-term reconciliation is near impossible because of the depths of the antagonisms and the ideological chasms between those fighting. The longer this country is held together by the mantra of territorial sovereignty, the higher the death toll will reach. In this situation, dividing up the country may be required as the price to stop the killing. From the former Yugoslavia to the former Sudan, this is the pattern when all other options have failed.

Finally, independent, comprehensive catalogues of all of the crimes must be compiled that can be relied upon in the future for when the criminals of all sides are finally brought to justice. As war criminals from decades ago are currently discovering, when their killing sprees end, and peace is eventually found, justice still has to be served, whoever the winner is.