The Media Line: ‘Part of the Problem’: Critics Say UN Lost Credibility on Syria Track 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

‘Part of the Problem’: Critics Say UN Lost Credibility on Syria Track 

Opposition figures and experts argue that trust-building rhetoric and procedural disputes replaced substantive negotiations, leaving the constitutional process at a standstill 

By Rizik Alabi/The Media Line 

[Damascus] The UN special envoy to Syria, Geir O. Pedersen, announced his resignation Thursday during a UN Security Council (UNSC) session, ending a tenure of nearly five years marked by political deadlock and deepening hardship for Syrians. The move comes at a sensitive moment, coinciding with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s arrival in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), setting the stage for questions about the UN’s next steps with Damascus. 

Since taking the post in January 2019, succeeding Staffan de Mistura, Pedersen convened multiple rounds of the Syrian Constitutional Committee in Geneva. Those sessions quickly stalled over agenda and venue disputes, producing no tangible outcomes; he did not bring the sides to sustained, text-based negotiations, and no draft constitution emerged that could anchor a political transition. 

While Syrians waited for concrete steps, Pedersen emphasized “building trust” and “reciprocal measures,” reinforcing the sense that his mission managed the process rather than produced breakthroughs. His tenure became synonymous with the absence of real progress on the Syrian track. 

Pedersen anchored his work in UNSC Resolution 2254, adopted in December 2015, which sets the legal and political framework for a Syrian-led transition. The resolution calls for a new constitution and free and fair elections, with the UN serving as a neutral mediator. 

Nearly a decade after that resolution, his efforts yielded no visible progress. The Constitutional Committee produced no consensual text, and the political process remained stalled through the fall of the previous Assad government—highlighting the UN’s inability to secure adherence to 2254. 

What most angered the Syrian opposition was what it viewed as clear bias toward Assad. Opposition members cited remarks Pedersen made in New York on September 26, 2024: “Assad has won, and you must accept this and adapt to this new reality. You must find the appropriate ways to work with him.” 

To opposition figures, those words exposed his true posture: entrenching the regime as a fait accompli and pressing the opposition to coexist with it rather than seek change. Many argued his proximity to Assad came at the expense of millions of victims, further marginalizing their voices. 

Political experts call Pedersen’s record frustrating on several levels. Dr. Samer Khatib, a Lebanese political analyst, told The Media Line that Pedersen “was the most fragile UN envoy in dealing with the Syrian file, as he did not dare to name the real obstructer of the political process. He limited himself to gray positions that served the regime’s survival rather than the Syrians.” 

Another assessment came from Dr. Lama Al-Hassan, an international relations researcher, who told The Media Line that the resigned envoy “focused on managing disputes rather than resolving them, preferring to deal with Assad as a reality. This stance caused the opposition to lose all confidence in the effectiveness of the UN track and undermined the UN’s credibility in the eyes of Syrians.” 

Meanwhile, Mohammad al-Ali, a Syrian analyst based in Europe, told The Media Line that Pedersen “was not merely a failure in his mission; he seemed to pave the way for rehabilitating the regime. His recent statements in New York that Assad has won clearly reveal his bias and confirm that the UN has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.” 

Pedersen’s resignation is not the first in this difficult portfolio. Four envoys preceded him, each unable to break the deadlock: Kofi Annan (2012), who resigned after five months for lack of international consensus; Lakhdar Brahimi (2012–2014), who managed but could not advance Geneva talks; Staffan de Mistura (2014–2018), who left after four years without tangible progress; and then Pedersen (2018–2025), reinforcing perceptions of UN paralysis. 

This chain of failures cemented a belief among Syrians that the problem lies less with individuals than with the absence of genuine international will to enforce a fair political track. 

Notably, Pedersen resigned as President al-Sharaa prepared to speak at UNGA in New York. The timing prompted questions about whether the UN seeks a new chapter with Damascus, amid speculation about a possible Syria–Israel security arrangement that could reshape regional balances. 

With Pedersen’s departure, familiar questions return: Can a new envoy alter the trajectory of the Syria track—especially after Bashar Assad’s flight to Russia in December 2024 and al-Sharaa’s rise—or will the UN continue circling through statements and setbacks? Syrians who have endured more than 14 years of war and displacement place less hope in names and more in the international community’s seriousness about breaking the deadlock.