Bridging Geneva and Astana: The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

As the conflict in Syria approaches its tenth anniversary, a holistic political settlement encompassing the entirety of the country is unlikely in the near to medium term. More than eight years of diplomatic initiatives have yielded only limited results. The two principal tracks – the Geneva and the Astana/Sochi processes – are running up against the complexity of the conflict and an emboldened Assad regime; neither process is sufficient on its own to generate momentum towards a lasting political settlement for the whole of Syria. However, creatively bridging these two processes could bring greater stability to those areas of Syria still beyond the Assad regime’s control, assuaging the suffering of some Syrians, and potentially serving as a building block for a longer-term settlement.

Barring a major strategic shift in diplomacy, developments on the ground could render both diplomatic efforts obsolete. Instead, negotiation efforts should pivot to develop innovative approaches to bridge the Geneva and Astana processes. This bridging effort would focus on consolidating fragile ceasefires in Syria’s northwest and northeast regions, and anchoring some semblance of stability in these areas through improved humanitarian access and enhancing local governance structures.

The ideas expressed are those of the author not the U.S. Institute of Peace or the publisher

Published in October 2020

All rights reserved to GCSP

Part of the Syria Transition Challenges Project