No peace without balance of power

It should come as no surprise that peace talks between the Assad regime and the opposition have been going nowhere so far, given the disparity in their bargaining positions and the imbalance between their military powers.

As long as Damascus has the upper hand militarily, it has no incentive to negotiate in earnest and reach a fair compromise.

During the early years of the conflict in Syria US President Barack Obama was advised by his then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the directors of the CIA and Department of Defence to strengthen the military position of the opposition by arming them with modern weapons, in a bid to improve their bargaining position, but the US president blew that chance, while calling for an end to the Assad regime.

The opposition remained weak militarily, being denied by the West, including the US, anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down the regime’s war planes which rained all kinds of bombs, including barrel bombs, on the many opposition groups’ positions to frustrate their military power.

UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura has been trying his best to push peace talks between the warring sides in Syria forward since his mission started nearly two years ago, but his efforts seem to be in vain, especially since Russia intervened militarily on behalf of the Assad regime and killed any chance for a negotiating settlement.

Before de Mistura, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan also did his best to arrive at a negotiated settlement between the warring parties, as did his successor Lakhdar Brahimi.

The international community, therefore, needs to understand why a political settlement in Syria is not within reach: unless and until the opposition gets the right kind of weapons to offset the military superiority of Damascus, there are no chances for a successful political solution for Syria.