As the situation in Syria continues to evolve following the ouster of President Bashar Assad, an almost decade-old UN Security Council resolution is being described as vital for what comes next.

"The people of Syria stand at a moment of history — and a moment of opportunity. That opportunity cannot be missed," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last week in New York. "The process must be guided by the underlying principles of Security Council Resolution 2254."

Many senior international diplomats, including the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, have said similar.

The Security Council, or UNSC, released a statement last week that also agreed with this statement, even though the body has been divided over issues pertaining to Syria.

Russia, one of the council's permanent members, is a long-standing ally of the Assad regime and became involved in the war on his behalf in 2015. Russia has vetoed or interfered in UNSC measures around Syria many times throughout the conflict, including blocking aid deliveries and vetoing an investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

However, now that the Assad regime is gone, Russia is taking a more placatory attitude to UNSC work on Syria.

What is UNSC Resolution 2254?

The resolution was passed unanimously by members of the UN Security Council in 2015 as the Syrian civil war became increasingly brutal and bloody.

It was intended as the basis of ceasefire talks. It advocates for a peaceful transition of power from dictatorship toward democracy. The Assad family had controlled Syria since 1971 and was known for violently suppressing any political dissent.After peaceful revolutions in 2011 during the so-called "Arab Spring," fighting broke out between the Syrian government, which tried to suppress the protests, and anti-government rebels.

According to Resolution 2254, any ceasefire should have included setting up a new, inclusive transitional government and drafting a new constitution. The ultimate aim was to ease Assad out of power and hold free and fair elections. The resolution said that this process should be Syrian-led but supported by the UN.

"The only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people" was probably the most often quoted line from Resolution 2254 over the past decade of war.

Resolution 2254 also committed to Syria's territorial integrity, national independence, societal unity and a non-sectarian system of governance.

How did the resolution come about?

Resolution 2254 was broadly based on what's known as the Geneva Communique of June 2012.

The Geneva Communique was a statement issued after talks held in Geneva, Switzerland, by the UN-backed Action Group for Syria. This group included foreign ministers from Arab countries, the EU, US, UK, Turkey, China and Russia. Syrians were not involved.

The UN Security Council endorsed the Geneva Communique in a 2013 resolution, but Resolution 2254 later outlined the steps needed to end the conflict more concretely.

Does Resolution 2254 still apply?

As one commentator noted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), "applying 2254 today feels like prescribing meds for a condition that no longer exists."

Indeed, some of the details of the resolution are now outdated. For instance, it calls for negotiations and power sharing between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government, headed by Assad. Obviously, that government no longer exists.

Syria's de-facto head of government, Ahmad al-Sharaa, head of the rebel militia that led the charge that toppled the Assad regime, has also raised this point. Al-Sharaa's "General Command," which is running the country during the current transition, broadly supports Resolution 2254, a statement from the organization said. But at this weekend's meeting with the UN's Special Envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, in Damascus, al-Sharaa also suggested that Resolution 2254 needed to be updated given new realities on the ground.

Foreign interference

Over the weekend, countries attending a meeting of what is known as the Astana Process also expressed support for Resolution 2254.

The Astana Process was started in 2017 by Russia, Iran and Turkey to "jumpstart" peace talks in Syria. All those countries played a significant part in the Syrian war, with Russia and Iran supporting the Assad regime and Turkey backing some anti-Assad rebel groups.

Over the weekend, the representatives of the original three Astana countries met with foreign ministers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and Qatar in Aqaba, Jordan. The group released a statement agreeing that the Syrian transition should proceed in accordance with Resolution 2254.

This statement has been met with some skepticism by Syrian opposition groups. They fear Resolution 2254 could be used as an excuse for foreign powers to interfere in Syria. Some Syrians have even expressed the same kind of suspicion about the UN aiding the transition, seeing it as either helpless or useless during their long-running civil war.

A roadmap

Despite criticisms of Resolution 2254, it still seems the most likely proposal to guide the Syrian transition.

"It is easier for [UN Security] Council members to stick with the basic principles of 2254 than come up with an entirely new plan for a UN role in Syria," Richard Gowan, UN director at the Criss Group think tank told Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National earlier in December.

The resolution could simply serve as a basis for a "Syrian-Syrian dialogue, with the participation of the full spectrum, including trustworthy individuals, technocrats, experts, patriots," Yahya al-Aridi, a university professor and former spokesperson for the Syrian opposition, told specialist publication Syria Direct last week.

To succeed, Syrian's transition "must be carried out by Syrians for Syrians, but with external assistance," Carl Bildt, Sweden's former prime minister and foreign minister, argued in a December op-ed for Project Syndicate. "The UN process represents the best way forward."

Edited by: Davis VanOpdorp