As Syria morphs into a regional crisis, Annan 'contact group' a good place to start

Warnings that the crisis in Syria will spiral into a serious regional problem have been sounded since the regime of Bashar al-Assad began to forcibly put down protesters over a year ago. Those warnings have turned out to be true – meaning that a solution to Syria should also involve the region.

International envoy Kofi Annan, then, is right to suggest the idea of an international “contact group” that can influence both sides in Syria – including regional players such as Iran. As the former UN secretary general himself admits, his six-point plan is not working and the country is in “imminent” danger of “full-scale civil war.”

But as Syria is divided, so is the region, and the obstacles confronting a contact group of world and regional powers are high indeed.

Events in Syria have always had regional implications and repercussions. For example, this conflict has produced a large number of refugees seeking shelter in neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.

However, in the past few months, the cross-border impact of the Syrian crisis has intensified. In northern Lebanon, for instance, recent clashes between pro-Assad Lebanese Alawites and pro-opposition Sunni groups highlight Lebanon’s own deterioration of relations between sects. While these clashes have not led to broader armed confrontations at the national level, still, the longer the violence continues in Syria, the more tense sectarian relations will become in Lebanon.

While the Syrian conflict is having increasingly stronger repercussions in the Middle East, it is also true that regional players are having a growing impact on the crisis in Syria.

Shiite Iran is strongly backing the Assad regime, made up of an Alawite minority that is a  considered a Shiite branch. Regional Sunni powers, such as Saudi Arabia, are supporting the opposition. Involvement from both sides fuels the Syrian fire as the country becomes a proxy battlefield for these two regional powers that compete for influence in the Middle East.

Sadly, the Middle East has seen this proxy fight before, during the long Lebanese civil war between 1975 and 1990.

What’s more, the Syria crisis mirrors a broader international divide. Members of the UN Security Council have opposing interests in Syria – with Russia, for instance, wanting to protect its strategic interests, investments, and port access there by keeping Mr. Assad in power.

Accordingly, a contact group along the lines that Mr. Annan proposes would engage all the main parties, both Assad’s backers – mostly China, Russia, and Iran – as well as supporters of the opposition – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. They would try to devise a mutually satisfying approach to end the violence.

Involving these players has an undeniable advantage: It is in tune with reality, recognizing that the conflict in Syria has reached a point where regional and international interests have mixed with those of the warring parties.

It also implicitly adjusts to the worsening internal situation within Syria. With the level of mutual trust between the Assad regime and the political opposition at an all time low, it will require solid third-party guarantees to convince both sides of the conflict to commit to end the hostilities.

1 | 2

Next