论文部分内容阅读
On December 18， 2015， the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a roadmap for a peace process in Syria， which was seen as having injected “fresh impetus” to solve the Syrian crisis.
The UN Security Council Resolution 2254 requires a nationwide ceasefire in Syria within January 2016 and the convening of formal Syrian-led and transition-focused negotiations in the same month between the Bashar al-Assadled government and opposition members， excluding terrorist groups such as the so-called“Islamic State” group （ISIS） and Jabhat al-Nusra. The United States， Russia and other regional countries will continue their fight against these extremist groups.
In parallel， the resolution stipulates that Syria must establish credible， inclusive and non-sectarian governance within six months， and hold free and fair elections within 18 months under UN supervision. As resolutions rarely gained the unanimous support of the 15 UN Security Council members， U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry described Resolution 2254 as a “milestone.”
To be sure， the resolution is one of the results of the two Vienna meetings on the Syrian conflict held in October and November 2015 respectively， and a significant symbol of the ability of the world’s top powers to use diplomatic means effectively. As the resolution has drawn a clear roadmap and timetable for the settlement of the crisis， it has brought the world much anticipation for the ending of the disastrous civil war.
However， the current reality in Syria is much more complicated than the text of the resolution， and the political settlement—not to mention the humanitarian needs—of the prolonged crisis still needs to overcome great obstacles.
Ceasefire may be out of reach
In most cases， the end of a civil war is brought about by a military victory， external interference， internal compromise or national secession. But based on the current Syrian situation， the above outcomes are seemingly impossible to reach.
The Syrian civil war has lasted for five years， but neither the government army nor the opposition can claim a decisive victory in the battlefields that are the cities and towns still inhabited by millions of innocent civilians. What is more， the conflict has become more complicated with the involvement of the Kurdish military forces and the barbarism of ISIS. The nature of the war thus also has had elements of terrorism and national separatism added， creating an even muddier picture. In addition， the Syrian conflict’s participants have received large amounts of foreign assistance. This has， for all intents and purposes， maintained the status quo of everyone losing， and no one winning.
Behind the Syrian Government are Russia and Iran， while Syrian opposition forces have gained support from the United States， Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since Russia began sending bombers to Syria in late September 2015， Washington and its allies also increased their support to the Assad’s opposition.
At the same time that foreign parties send aid and weapons as well as launch airstrikes， they also do not want to be caught in an entrenched war like those of Iraq or Afghanistan： No one has signaled their intention to send ground forces into Syria.
Meanwhile， Turkey is keeping its focus on its long border with Syria while Saudi Arabia has shifted its emphasis to Yemen. Even Iran， which sent the largest number of military forces to Syria， is now showing signs of withdrawal. The U.S. military estimated recently that the number of soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria has declined from about 2，000 in October 2014 to 700.
Generally， the precondition for compromise is that parties involved in a conflict either have no confidence in wining or are unwilling to continue the war， and they agree to accept an international peacekeeping army in the country for monitoring. However， there is no such sign from any party in the Syrian conflict. The fighting going on in north Syria’s Latakia and Aleppo is still extraordinarily violent.
Challenges abound
Moreover， there is a wide gap between the Syrian Government and the opposition in their stance for political talks. Assad and his supporters are united in actively pushing for the political talks and hope the talks will help elevate the international legitimacy of the current government.
In contrast， the opposition camp is in a state of disunity and appears feeble before even coming to the negotiation table. Despite that Saudi Arabia gathered more than 100 opposition leaders for a meeting to build consensus in Riyadh on December 10 of last year， the differences among the opposition can hardly be narrowed.
First， the Kurdish groups in north Syria were excluded from the Riyadh meeting. Some radical organizations even refused to sign on to a joint statement at the conclusion of the meeting. These internal differences among opponents of the Assad regime thus resulted in a lack of motivation for political dialogue with the stronger governmental delegation. Moreover， Khaled Khoja， President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces， claimed on December 19 last year that the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 is not pragmatic and undermines the achievement of the Riyadh meeting.
In the meantime， a large amount of Syrian land is under the control of extremist groups. Therefore， resolving the Syrian conflict by dividing the country into several autonomous regions is currently impossible： There is no way to completely eradicate the terrorist groups in a short time. Even if dividing the country could help in ending the current Syrian conflict， it would likely trigger a disastrous chain effect in other countries including Iraq， Libya and Yemen， resulting in widespread calamity for the whole of the Middle East.
Now， with the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254， it seems that the international community has built a kind of basic consensus on the Syrian issue. Yet peace in Syria cannot be achieved immediately. Especially since right before the new round of Syrian political dialogue was to be staged， conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran lit up once again. The rising tensions have led to a wave of shuttering diplomatic relations between Sunni states and Shia Iran and intensified sectarian clashes even further. As the two most influential forces behind the Syrian civil conflict， and in the region as a whole， the confrontation between the two countries has cast a new shadow on the prospect of the political settlement of the Syrian civil war.
China， as an important participant in the Syrian peace process， has long adhered to the approach of the combination of principle and flexibility in solving the issue through political means. China’s effort has played an important role in pushing forward the proper settlement of the Syrian crisis and gained appreciation from both the Syrian Government and opposition leaders.
Against the increasingly complicated situation， China needs to make better use of its impartial position on the issue， making vigorous yet steady efforts in promoting the hard-won peace talks. In particular， China needs to take active steps to coordinate with major parties involved in the Syrian crisis such as Iran and Saudi Arabia， trying to avoid conflict and adding no new obstacles to the chance for a lasting peace in Syria.
The UN Security Council Resolution 2254 requires a nationwide ceasefire in Syria within January 2016 and the convening of formal Syrian-led and transition-focused negotiations in the same month between the Bashar al-Assadled government and opposition members， excluding terrorist groups such as the so-called“Islamic State” group （ISIS） and Jabhat al-Nusra. The United States， Russia and other regional countries will continue their fight against these extremist groups.
In parallel， the resolution stipulates that Syria must establish credible， inclusive and non-sectarian governance within six months， and hold free and fair elections within 18 months under UN supervision. As resolutions rarely gained the unanimous support of the 15 UN Security Council members， U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry described Resolution 2254 as a “milestone.”
To be sure， the resolution is one of the results of the two Vienna meetings on the Syrian conflict held in October and November 2015 respectively， and a significant symbol of the ability of the world’s top powers to use diplomatic means effectively. As the resolution has drawn a clear roadmap and timetable for the settlement of the crisis， it has brought the world much anticipation for the ending of the disastrous civil war.
However， the current reality in Syria is much more complicated than the text of the resolution， and the political settlement—not to mention the humanitarian needs—of the prolonged crisis still needs to overcome great obstacles.
Ceasefire may be out of reach
In most cases， the end of a civil war is brought about by a military victory， external interference， internal compromise or national secession. But based on the current Syrian situation， the above outcomes are seemingly impossible to reach.
The Syrian civil war has lasted for five years， but neither the government army nor the opposition can claim a decisive victory in the battlefields that are the cities and towns still inhabited by millions of innocent civilians. What is more， the conflict has become more complicated with the involvement of the Kurdish military forces and the barbarism of ISIS. The nature of the war thus also has had elements of terrorism and national separatism added， creating an even muddier picture. In addition， the Syrian conflict’s participants have received large amounts of foreign assistance. This has， for all intents and purposes， maintained the status quo of everyone losing， and no one winning.
Behind the Syrian Government are Russia and Iran， while Syrian opposition forces have gained support from the United States， Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since Russia began sending bombers to Syria in late September 2015， Washington and its allies also increased their support to the Assad’s opposition.
At the same time that foreign parties send aid and weapons as well as launch airstrikes， they also do not want to be caught in an entrenched war like those of Iraq or Afghanistan： No one has signaled their intention to send ground forces into Syria.
Meanwhile， Turkey is keeping its focus on its long border with Syria while Saudi Arabia has shifted its emphasis to Yemen. Even Iran， which sent the largest number of military forces to Syria， is now showing signs of withdrawal. The U.S. military estimated recently that the number of soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria has declined from about 2，000 in October 2014 to 700.
Generally， the precondition for compromise is that parties involved in a conflict either have no confidence in wining or are unwilling to continue the war， and they agree to accept an international peacekeeping army in the country for monitoring. However， there is no such sign from any party in the Syrian conflict. The fighting going on in north Syria’s Latakia and Aleppo is still extraordinarily violent.
Challenges abound
Moreover， there is a wide gap between the Syrian Government and the opposition in their stance for political talks. Assad and his supporters are united in actively pushing for the political talks and hope the talks will help elevate the international legitimacy of the current government.
In contrast， the opposition camp is in a state of disunity and appears feeble before even coming to the negotiation table. Despite that Saudi Arabia gathered more than 100 opposition leaders for a meeting to build consensus in Riyadh on December 10 of last year， the differences among the opposition can hardly be narrowed.
First， the Kurdish groups in north Syria were excluded from the Riyadh meeting. Some radical organizations even refused to sign on to a joint statement at the conclusion of the meeting. These internal differences among opponents of the Assad regime thus resulted in a lack of motivation for political dialogue with the stronger governmental delegation. Moreover， Khaled Khoja， President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces， claimed on December 19 last year that the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 is not pragmatic and undermines the achievement of the Riyadh meeting.
In the meantime， a large amount of Syrian land is under the control of extremist groups. Therefore， resolving the Syrian conflict by dividing the country into several autonomous regions is currently impossible： There is no way to completely eradicate the terrorist groups in a short time. Even if dividing the country could help in ending the current Syrian conflict， it would likely trigger a disastrous chain effect in other countries including Iraq， Libya and Yemen， resulting in widespread calamity for the whole of the Middle East.
Now， with the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254， it seems that the international community has built a kind of basic consensus on the Syrian issue. Yet peace in Syria cannot be achieved immediately. Especially since right before the new round of Syrian political dialogue was to be staged， conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran lit up once again. The rising tensions have led to a wave of shuttering diplomatic relations between Sunni states and Shia Iran and intensified sectarian clashes even further. As the two most influential forces behind the Syrian civil conflict， and in the region as a whole， the confrontation between the two countries has cast a new shadow on the prospect of the political settlement of the Syrian civil war.
China， as an important participant in the Syrian peace process， has long adhered to the approach of the combination of principle and flexibility in solving the issue through political means. China’s effort has played an important role in pushing forward the proper settlement of the Syrian crisis and gained appreciation from both the Syrian Government and opposition leaders.
Against the increasingly complicated situation， China needs to make better use of its impartial position on the issue， making vigorous yet steady efforts in promoting the hard-won peace talks. In particular， China needs to take active steps to coordinate with major parties involved in the Syrian crisis such as Iran and Saudi Arabia， trying to avoid conflict and adding no new obstacles to the chance for a lasting peace in Syria.