Some experts contend that Washington’s limited role in the Astana negotiations—conducted by Russia, Iran and Turkey—evidences its diminishing regional status
Turkey has requested that the United States withdraw its forces from observation points set up in northern Syria, after President Donald Trump counseled world leaders to abandon the Astana peace process due to its alleged ineffectiveness.
The Astana negotiations have since 2017 been conducted by Russia, Iran and Turkey with a view to devising a political solution to end the nearly eight-years-long war in Syria. The talks are being undertaken in parallel to the United Nations-sponsored Geneva peace negotiations which have, to date, failed to produce many tangible results.
“The Astana talks are, among much else, part of a general process focusing on the constitutional reform of the Syrian government, a resolution to the civil war, and the elimination of radical [terrorist] structures,” Murat Yeşiltaş, Director of Security Studies at the SETA Foundation, explained to The Media Line.
“Turkey, Russia, and Iran are closely operating on the ground in Syria and in the diplomatic arena and it is this concerted step-by-step process that has been important. The countries started by declaring a cease-fire and then announced the demilitarized zone in Idlib Province. This also shows a strengthening rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow” which Washington views as a threat to its regional influence.
Yeşiltaş contends that the Geneva initiative has, by contrast, largely failed because “it has too many players that are disconnected from the conflict and that don’t agree on the best strategy to pursue. For example, France and the U.S. wanted to invite groups to the negotiating table that Turkey sees as terrorist organizations.”
Given the circumstances, the U.S. appears to be pushing back, with Special Envoy to Syria James Jeffrey recently having called on the international community to “pull the plug” on the Astana talks if they fail to deliver political reforms in Damascus by December 14.
“The US has little role in the Astana process—it is only an ‘observer’—so it’s difficult to see this being much more than a symbolic effort to put pressure on Russia,” Dr. Christopher Phillips, Associate Fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Program at the London-based Chatham House think-tank, conveyed to The Media Line. “Even if the U.S. pulled out of Astana it would not be an issue.”
Meanwhile, many analysts agree that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan construes the U.S.’ current posturing as threat to his objective of carving out security zones along Turkey’s border with Syria.
“At some point we will see a concerted effort from Turkey to get a hold of other areas near the Euphrates [river] in order to establish a proper buffer zone,” Dr. Phillips predicted. “Pressing the Americans to allow that to happen is part of the Turkish strategy. There is a cost to what the U.S. is doing [in intervening with Astana] and Ankara wants to show this.”
Other observers note that developments in the Syrian peace process have exposed a broader trend in the Middle East: namely, that various traditional U.S. allies are opting to secure their regional interests through non-traditional means independent of the world’s lone superpower.
“You have this sort of interesting situation where Ankara’s closeness to Moscow is not a short-term tactical approach in order to attract more attention from America; rather, it’s a permanent feature of its foreign policy,” Dr. Phillips concluded.
“However, it’s not a zero-sum game. Turkey will remain aligned to the U.S. in global matters but regionally it will be aligned to Russia on issues related to Syria.”
(Victor Cabrera is a student intern in The Media Line’s Press and Policy Student Program)