For the first time in four-and-a-half years of war, the Syrian conflict is showing signs of a possible diplomatic and political solution. The Syrian government has indicated that it is willing and ready to attend peace talks with opposition groups in Geneva later this month.

During a press briefing in late December, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem stated that, “Syria is ready to take part in Geneva meetings at the appointed time.” However, al-Moallem indicated that as a condition of attending peace talks, the list distinguishing between “terrorist organisations” and those from the “Syrian opposition sides” would have to be reviewed. This has caused alarm amongst rebel groups, due to suspicions that the Syrian government will seek to discredit their legitimate concerns by branding them ‘terrorist organisations.’

Moallem was also critical of the prevalence of external powers intervening in the conflict in Syria, stating that any diplomatic solutions reached in Geneva, “are linked to the credibility of the efforts of fighting terrorism which require forcing the countries which support terrorism to stop backing it.” The history of foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict is complex, but these statements appear to be directed at Saudi Arabia, which has been a major supporter of the Syrian opposition, politically represented by the Syrian National Coalition. These accusations of intervention may also extend to private benefactors in Saudi Arabia, who have also been accused of funding ISIS activities in Syria and Iraq.

A key issue leading up to the talks is the future of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The majority of Syrian opposition groups are demanding that Assad step down before negotiations can take place. However Assad has indicated that his departure is out of the question until ‘terrorism’ is eliminated from the country, and elections are held. Russia, a major supporter of the Assad regime, has stated that Assad’s future is for the Syrian people, not external powers, to decide. The US, on the other hand, has been clear in its desire to remove Assad.

Whilst the issue of Assad’s future may prove divisive, critics have argued that the primary aim of the negotiations must be an end to the conflict that has so far claimed over 250 000 lives. To this end, whether Assad remains in power is unimportant, as long as stability is restored to the region. However these comments conflate short-term stability with lasting peace, and fail to understand the possible repercussions of failing to make Assad answer for his crimes.

On face value, a failure to remove Assad would constitute a tacit acceptance of the Syrian government’s four-and-a-half year slaughter of civilians. This would be yet another example of where the pragmatism of US foreign policy is at the expense of Middle Eastern lives. Further, the US has clearly placed its support in the opposition Syrian forces; a failure to stand by its word will further erode the US’ international credibility as capable of fulfilling its promises. This would come at a time where the US has already overwhelmingly failed to deter the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Importantly, it would also come at a time where many South-East Asian states, as well as Japan, are looking to the US for leadership amid growing territorial tensions with China.

Whether Assad stays or goes, diplomats in Geneva need to make the most of this opportunity to provide political and social stability for the Syrian people. Major issues will likely include the continued threat of ISIS, and issues of political autonomy for ethnic groups such as the Kurds. If ‘free and fair elections’ are to be held within 18 months, the voices of the many different religious and ethnic groups within Syria must be independently heard and included. Most importantly, credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance must represent the broad spectrum of Syrian society, lest disenfranchised groups plunge Syria into civil conflict once again.