After all the years of suffering endured by the Syrian people, Mr. Geir Pedersen presented, in his speech before the UN Security Council on Thursday, April 25, 2024, a proposal that warrants reflection.
He called for "exploring a new comprehensive approach that addresses the full range of issues," referring to the entire Syrian file.

We say: as advocates of international legitimacy, international law, and the UN framework, we no longer know what to say to our people who have suffered for years inside Syria and in refugee camps, waiting for a breakthrough in this complex scene.
They are stuck in a cycle of hopeless stagnation, measured in pain, deprivation, and prolonged suffering.

We can no longer confront the growing influence of violent groups and their reckless discourse, which exploits the UN’s failure in Syria and the absence of any real political will.
Meanwhile, weapons are spreading into the hands of children before adults, threatening to explode the situation and drag everyone into a bloody unknown.

We ask: what new approach can be explored outside the framework of a political solution and the implementation of UN Resolution 2254, which clearly calls for the formation of a transitional governing body with full executive powers?

Is the suffering of the Syrian people just a testing ground for Mr. Pedersen to move from one approach to another without a clear timeline or vision?

What kind of approach can he propose now, after his repeated failure to break the ice of Syrian deadlock?

Are we to believe that the new approach is the de facto partition of Syria into four regions under current zones of control, creating four states, four peoples, and four governments that the United Nations would recognize?

Or is it the abandonment of both the Syrian regime and the opposition, as well as all de facto authorities, and a call for a third path that merely manages current realities while focusing on early recovery aid—just enough food, water, and minimal survival?

Or perhaps it is a search for a new Geneva conference, based on a new resolution, one that buries the idea of a transitional governing body once and for all, relieving Mr. Pedersen of the burden of pursuing such a goal—and offering the regime its long-sought escape from accountability?

Why should the new approach not be placing all of Syria under a special international mandate administered by the United Nations?
Is this proposal off the table?

A new approach—what color, what form can it possibly take in Syria, when the logical and legitimate solution we have worked on for years has failed to gain Mr. Pedersen’s support?

Why should the new approach not be an acknowledgment of his failure—and that of those behind him—and a call to give space to someone more competent, someone who would take full responsibility to implement a genuine political solution?

Could that not be the right approach, wonders the Syrian Future Movement?

Dodging ethical and historical responsibility and throwing the solution into the unknown—forcing Syrians to return to square one, searching for new resolutions, new ideas, or different tracks—is nothing but a catastrophic failure.
Not just for Mr. Pedersen, but for the entire UN system, for international law, and for the international order.

It is nothing but the erosion and destruction of Syria’s political and civil path.
It fuels the zero-sum, violent discourse that will drown Syrians deeper in an endless conflict.

It appears that what Syria needs is not just a new approach—though that might be necessary.
What we need is a new special envoy—one who carries out his mission with firmness, professionalism, and integrity.
An envoy who resigns if he cannot make any progress, instead of deflecting responsibility elsewhere.

We need a revolutionary approach that rekindles our cause’s fire and restores its legitimacy in all international forums.
One that speaks to the spirit, mind, and conscience of Syria’s revolutionary youth.

We need a new approach that enables us, as Syrians, to take control of our own destiny, instead of being tossed around by those who have nothing to do with our cause.