Communique in Geneva: This Time They Mean It???

The 2015 Communique in Geneva sounds like a reasonable framework for negotiating a peace agreement in Syria. The signatories agreed to a similar communique in 2012. This communique went nowhere. Have the actors embraced it this time presupposing a sincere commitment to a political solution. Did 250,000 dead inject a sudden burst of humanitarian energy among them? No. The language of the communique shows deference to the integrity of Syrian sovereignty. Compare what this language implies to the conflicting words of the Obama administration, their increased military intervention, and Saudi foreign minister's public rhetoric.

This recent Communique dated October 30, 2015 lists nine major points of which number seven if acted upon holds the most promise for peaceful, political solution in Syria:

Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique and U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the participants invited the U.N. to convene representatives of the Government of Syria and the Syrian opposition for a political process leading to credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance, followed by a new constitution and elections.  These elections must be administered under U.N. supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, free and fair, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate. [1]

My first question in reading this recommendation stated in the current Communique is why was the initial Communique released in 2012 not implemented? Especially since its language is similar to the current Communique. This Communique included no stipulations that Assad relinquish power.  The diplomatic objectives stated in the 2012 Communique were agreed to only insofar as it provided time for a certain empire to continue its support of the Syrian opposition [2]. Also, Kofi Annan who served as the UN Envoy for Syria anticipated that:

the Geneva Communique to be formalized in a UN Security Council resolution within weeks. Instead, when the parties reassembled in New York, the U.S. and its allies resurrected their demands for President Bashar al-Assad’s removal. [3]

The Communique signatories' conflicting objectives exposed a brutal impasse, prompting Annan's resignation as UN Special Envoy. [4]. Next, the Syrian would continue to pay for the U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) pathological obsession with regime change.

Fast forward to today and assess the probability that these nations and groups experienced humanitarian impulses necessary to implement the current Communique. Given the rhetoric and actions of both but not limited to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the conditions of this current Communique appear stillborn.

The U.S. ally in the Syrian conflict is the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which:

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatens "all necessary measures" to prevent Syrian Kurds from advancing west of the Euphrates River. [5]

Now compare Erdogan's objective to the current trend of U.S. support for the Syrian Kurds:

Now, the YPG is pushing west from Jazeera towards Jarabulus. The US recently provided 50 tons of ammunition to the YPG and affiliated Arab fighters, readying for the battle to liberate the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. [6]

Erdogan is not reaction to the U.S. support for the YPG is unambiguous:

Turkey strongly opposes US support for the YPG. Turkish war-planes recently strafed YPG fighters on at least two occasions. Erdogan warns Washington, "We don't need anyone's permission." [7]

The U.S. relationship with Erdogan is weakening. If he weren't a head of state, his prioritizing of crushing Kurds over maintaining strong diplomatic relations with the U.S. could be dubbed "blowback."

Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir arrogantly displays prioritizing the overthrow of Assad rather than battling ISIS. In an interview with the BBC Adel-al-Jubeir stated:

"He will go either through a political process or he will be removed by force." [8] 

His living in the privileged bubble of the Saudi monarchy where they project power and oppress all dissenters creates his sense of entitlement shown in his arrogating the power to decide Syria's future. In this setting Assad is viewed as just another heretic. Meanwhile, his monarchy he serves as an esteemed diplomat continues bombing Yemen which has caused 2,300 civilian deaths of which the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights claims Saudi air strikes account for two thirds. Another humanitarian disaster and further destabilization in the Middle East. Will the twin evils of this monarchy and petrodollars mock memories of the Arab Spring?

Both the Saudi Foreign Minister's comments and Turkey's actions demonstrate their resolve that any future peace settlement is contingent upon Assad stepping down. Their hypocrisy exceeds a pathological level. The most important issue is that if their demands are met, then the implications will be that yes terrorism is further solidified as a legitimate tool of regime change. 

[1]. "Joint Statement: Final declaration on the results of the Syria Talks in Vienna as agreed by participants." European Union. October 20, 2015. http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/2015/151030_06.htm

[2]. Nicholas J S Davies. "Syria at a Crossroads." Consortium News.com. Nov 01,2015. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/01/syria-at-a-crossroads/

[3]. Ibid.

[4]. IbId. ****also see Annan's editorial published following his resignation at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b00b6ed4-dbc9-11e1-8d78-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Pi8X0kRX

[5]. Phillips, David. L. "U.S. and Turkey on a Collision Course in Syria." The WordlPost: A Partnership of the Huffington Post and and Bergguen Institute. November 03, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/us-and-turkey-on-a-collis_b_8452606.html

[6]. Ibid.

[7]. Ibid.

[8]. BBC News. "Syria Conflict: Saudi says Iran must accept Assad exit." Oct 29, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34670774