Dr. Bassma Kodmani, welcome to ANU Media.
Dr. Kodmani Is the Director of the Arab Reform Initiative,
and also Associate Professor attending the Crawford
Leadership Forum.
I wanted to ask you, what is your view
of the current situation in Syria?
How do you think the peace process, if there is one,
is going?
We have a political process, or a negotiation process,
led by the United Nations with a Special Envoy,
with terms of reference for the process, et cetera.
But the reality is, we do not have any real negotiations
so far.
We had seven, eight, nine rounds so far,
going to Geneva every time and having no direct negotiations.
The opposition delegation, representing
all the different groups of the opposition,
has agreed to a certain agenda for the talks
on the constitution, elections, security,
and political transition.
On the side of the Syrian government,
we have no acceptance so far of engaging directly.
So we have indirect talks with the UN Special
Envoy about these issues, but we don't
have any real bilateral negotiations.
We were looking forward to having those,
but the Syrian regime has not agreed so far.
The Syrian situation is so complex.
Do you think that the best way to proceed,
in order to secure a viable political resolution
of the conflict, is for Washington and Moscow
to reach an understanding?
What do you think--
what's your assessment of the chances
of such an understanding being reached
between these two major powers?
Well, as you know, the conflict started
with an uprising, a popular uprising
against an authoritarian regime.
So it was a Syrian domestic issue.
It turned into a regional conflict
and has become now, international,
because it has involved the United States and Russia
heavily.
Russia more heavily than the United States.
I think what we have seen over the last seven years
is that the engagement of regional forces
has been disruptive, very disruptive,
and has complicated the situation.
So my sense is, today we need an agreement between Russia
and the United States in order to bring
the regional powers to some--
to accept certain constraints on their behavior
and their involvement in Syria, particularly the withdrawal
of their troops.
We have militias that are organized and led by Iran
directly, on Syrian soil.
We have fighters, and commanders,
and officers from the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.
We have the presence of the Turkish Army.
We have US forces, we have Russian forces.
And we have groups coming from across the region,
transnational actors.
All of these players, I feel, cannot be brought--
cannot be reined in until we have an agreement between
Russia and the United States about which are
their legitimate interests in this region.
What are their responsibilities, as international powers
and members of the Security Council
responsible for collective security?
We have a very attentive Israeli partner--
sorry, neighbor looking at what is
happening on Syrian territory, intervening militarily
with its Air Force.
So all of this can, I think, only be brought under control
by the United States and Russia agreeing
on what a political process should be.
We had some agreement between President Putin and President
Trump last year, but that has not
turned into anything effectively on the ground so far.
Do you see any space for the Assad regime
in the process of negotiations?
I mean, my understanding is that you wouldn't want the Assad
regime to collapse immediately, and you
would like to see it as part of a very peaceful and democratic
transition.
Look, we engage on the basis of--
we want an orderly transition in Syria.
We certainly want a transition out of authoritarianism.
We want a full change of the political system.
So we are looking for a serious political transition.
That means that the Assad regime, as it is today,
cannot continue.
Now, we would, ideally, like to see
a gradual transition, and orderly, preserving
the institutions of the state.
But certainly not those agencies that work--
that are involved in very, very major crimes against humanity
and war crimes.
They need to go through prosecution processes.
We need a transitional justice process for Syria.
But we first of all need to see that we
have a partner to engage with.
So far, the Assad regime has not engaged in negotiations.
So as much as we would like this to be a negotiated process,
we are not seeing that that party is engaging
on the Syrian regime side.
So we look to Assad's protectors, Assad's allies,
and first and foremost, we look to Russia
for it to see that it is in its interest
to build a new legitimacy in Syria, which
is a new political system with a government that involves--
that represents the people, represents all groups in Syria,
that brings back stability, brings some rule of law
to the country.
Simple criteria for decent and legitimate governance
for the country.
Russia is more our interlocutor, unfortunately, than the regime
itself today.
Dr. Kodmani, Australia has been involved
in fighting violent extremism in the region.
Not only in Syria but also, to some extent--
not only in Iraq but also, to some extent, in Syria.
What contributions could a country like Australia
make to the process of a negotiated settlement?
I think by saying, first of all, Australia
is a democratic country.
A democratic country that has credibility
when it talks about building legitimate governance
and building a legitimate political system.
That's what we need to hear.
The legitimacy here is the key word
for building a transition, for organizing
a transition in Syria.
And after that, or in accompaniment of that,
having a reconstruction of the country, the return
of refugees, the withdrawal of foreign forces.
So I think where a country like Australia can engage
is, engage those countries that are directly involved in Syria.
We have Iran on the ground, we have
Russia on the ground, which need to be engaged
to see what exactly they want in Syria,
and what is compatible with rebuilding
a sovereign country in Syria, where
Syrians lead their future.
So I think this is one aspect.
The other aspect is, Australia has been contributing hugely
to the humanitarian effort.
It would certainly want to see, other than just providing
food and shelter for people, but the return
of these people to their homes and rebuilding the country.
So in the reconstruction process,
which we all look forward to see happen as soon as possible,
for Syrians to be able to return to their country.
Then we would like to see that the important consideration,
the indicator is a legitimate transition in politics,
in the political system.
That Australia can certainly advocate, can certainly
work towards seeing legitimacy built,
in order for reconstruction to be shaped
in the direction of consolidating legitimacy,
and not consolidating one group against another.
And that brings me to my last question,
and that is the reconstruction of Syria.
I mean, this is going to really cost
billions and billions of dollars,
not to mention that Syria has lost
a generation of its people, and half of the population
has left the country, and all that,
which really requires the return of all
these people to their homeland.
But just the physical reconstruction of Syria
is going to be so much that is one is very highly
doubtful that, for example, a country like Russia or Iran,
or a combination of the two, can really make that degree
or that amount of contribution to enable
the Syrians to rebuild their lives and their country.
So that would really require the efforts
of the international community as a whole.
And for that reason, it is absolutely imperative
to have a political settlement of the conflict.
Indeed, I think where the real weight of countries
such as Australia, such as the European Union,
Canada, the United States can really step in at the moment
when the political change brings an acceptable means,
the acceptable ways of doing the reconstruction.
Because of course, its hundreds of billions.
Its very costly.
But its also about how you channel this aid.
Can a country like Australia or the European Union
come into the country and channel this aid
through a corrupt system?
Obviously not.
A system that has no law that governs any of its actions?
Obviously not.
So what we're looking to build is rule of law
and which channels are safe, in order not
to feed into the corrupt system that we've had,
which is a predatory system which
has really impoverished the population
and enriched the ruling elite.
So it is really about governance.
It's really about which channels to use.
And reconstruction then can happen.
Whether it happens in 2 years, 5 years,
20 years is less important than making
sure the channels you use are for the benefit of the people,
and for the purposes that you are putting that money
into the country for.
So that's where the real weight of democratic countries
such as Australia can really make a difference.
Well, let's hope for a better future, at least
for the sake of the Syrian people.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Professor Saikal.