Can Geneva Survive Astana?

Abstract

Despite 12 years of violence and numerous attempts to end the conflict, the Syrian conflict stands among the largest humanitarian crises of the twenty-first century. Currently, there are two peacemaking interventions: the United Nations-backed Geneva process and Iran, Russia, and Turkey-sponsored Astana. By the initiation of the Astana process, the UN lost its monopoly in peacemaking, and its legitimacy as a mediator started to decrease gradually. Eventually, the UN's peacemaking in Syria became paralyzed, and UN mediation passed the point of credibility. This study focuses on the reasons for this state of paralysis by analyzing the structural challenges within and outside of the United Nations. This study defines four credibility-undermining indicators specific to the UN mediation in Syria, namely, a) fragmented Security Council, b) Geneva's sidelining by Astana and subsequent loss of leverage, c) parties' noncompliance with mediators' initiatives and minimal progress, and lastly, d) lack of accountability in the face of mass atrocity crimes. This research will examine all the factors causing the credibility loss of Geneva starting from the initiation of the Astana process in January 2017. The study aims to show that the initiation of the Astana format, which was the manifestation of geopolitical interest clashes between major powers, overshadowed and absorbed the UN's role in peacemaking.