The difficulties of the negotiations for peace in Syria

Once again negotiations to begin the peace process in Syria struggled to get a start because of too many variables present, which generate vetoes and the impossibility of the participation of all the forces in the field. The Syrian war has caused, so far, about 260,000 victims, not counting the wounded, suffering for lack of food and medicines and escape forced by the violence, which resulted in the mass exodus outside the country. Democratic forces, while talking about their own unavailability to participate in the negotiations, are unconvinced of the good faith of the government in Damascus, because of the constant bombing carried out on civilians. In fact, even before Russia's participation in the conflict, the action of the forces of Assad was mostly directed against the opposition to his government, rather than against the caliphate. The reason for this behavior, there are two reasons: the first is that the democratic opposition groups are considered by Damascus opponents, less dangerous militarily but politically destabilizing, the second is that these groups are supported mainly by the United States but also from Saudi Arabia, who famously wants to extend its influence on the Syrian country. Reconcile the simultaneous presence of the Syrian opposition and the regime in Damascus at the same table at the moment is very difficult undertaking, and, in fact, probably at the next meeting in Geneva democratic groups do not participate. This position, which does not allow the release of the political and diplomatic situation, it is certainly incompatible with a solution that addresses the end use of the weapons, but must be specified, that the main responsibility lies in violent behavior, supported by the Russians, the government of Damascus, which was marked by an excessive use of force against the civilian population. The position of Assad would rather examined by an international tribunal, rather than a presence in a hypothetical negotiation for peace, which would represent only a way out for the preservation of their own power. However, the entry into the war of Russia overturned the fate of Damascus, which now has considerable scope to hold at least a part of the sovereignty of the country, the most strategically important. Another variable is very important Iran: the end of sanctions, Tehran, may repurchase as well as a economic importance, also a central diplomatic, especially in the Middle East, although this is not appreciated by the monarchies of the Gulf; However, the Iranian leaders intend to re-appropriating full of their diplomatic role and emerge from isolation in which they were confined. The ratio of Tehran with current scenario of the Middle East is not unique: while Syria are in line with Russia, for the defense of Assad, the Islamic state are in sync with the United States, but not with the Sunni countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, countries which, like Iran, are playing an important role on these issues. Conflicting interests, added the religious rivalries do not facilitate a predisposition to joint participation in negotiations on a very sensitive issue like Syria. What unites suits the components of the scenario is an attitude of waiting, which aims to exploit the slightest opportunity to create an advantage over counterparts; the only exception is the behavior of Russia, which has undergone a remarkable propensity to adopt intervention, quite the opposite of the United States, which since the beginning of the crisis, have maintained a very sheltered, not to be again personally committed in a conflict in the Middle East. However, in this position of inaction it is to be sought the reason for the prolongation of the conflict. Then there is the variable Kurdish which can not be ignored, for the active presence in the fight against Islamic Stat in Syria and also to the size of the population of this ethnic group in the country Syrian. Moscow recognizes that without the Kurdish presence no negotiations will be a success, but it is deeply contested by the Turks, who fear the establishment of a Kurdish state on their borders. On this subject, the United States, that are formally allied with Turkey, more inclined to the opinion of Russia. As we see the mission of the United Nations, Staffan de Mistura and the same Secretary Ban Ki-Moon will appear very complicated to organize a peace conference with all of these variables, is a real company, even if the agreement between Moscow and Washington for an international meeting, scheduled for February 11, on the Syrian issue could open some perspective more concrete. But again it is paramount to the time factor, perhaps the most decisive variable for the protection of the Syrian people.