Syria Analysis: It’s Not a “Ceasefire” — It’s Cover for the US and Russia

14
321
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura (L-R) arrive for a news conference after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich, Germany, February 12, 2016. REUTERS/Michael Dalder - RTX26KGU

PHOTO: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and UN envoy Staffan de Mistura on Thursday night


Published in partnership with The Conversation:


Headlines are declaring the arrangement of a ceasefire in Syria’s conflict. Announced by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov late on February 11, it has been greeted as a ray of hope in the floundering efforts to end this seemingly intractable conflict.

What it isn’t is a ceasefire. The International Syria Support Group (ISSG) – a coalition of 17 nations, among them Russia and the US, the Arab League, the European Union, and the UN – has not in fact used that term, preferring a “cessation of hostilities”. And it isn’t even that: it’s a proposal for a cessation of hostilities, one that will supposedly start soon, but only after a working group has met with representatives of countries supporting the Assad regime and those backing Syria’s opposition.

Nor is it a viable proposal. Instead, it’s best seen as political cover. It covers Kerry, in his remarkably zealous quest to secure the start of a resolution by the end of March, and Russia, in its mission to prop up the Assad regime by bombing the rebels and civilian areas in concert with both Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran.

The Plan

There are two main components to the plan. First, the ISSG proposes “immediate and sustained humanitarian access to reach all people in need, throughout Syria, particularly in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas”.

It’s immediate priorities: the regime-held parts of Deir ez-Zor Province in eastern Syria that are surrounded by the Islamic State , regime enclaves in Idlib Province in north-west Syria, and the opposition-held town of Madaya and suburbs of Damascus, where scores of people have died of starvation amid over three years of blockades by Syria’s military.

The plan then sets out the steps for “a nationwide cessation of hostilities” to begin in one week’s time. Military operations will be halted except for operations against the Islamic State, the jihadist militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, and “other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations Security Council”.

These two components lay the foundation for the long-heralded “political transition”, still planned to begin within six months after talks between the regime and opposition. The transition will last 18 months to establish a “credible, inclusive, and non-sectarian governance” with a new constitution and “free and fair elections”.

But as with the ISSG’s plan set out in mid-December, this proposal makes no reference to the fate of President Bashar al-Assad and his inner circle.

The Obstacles

On the surface, the commitments to aid and cessation of hostilities meet the conditions set by Syria’s opposition/rebel bloc for the start of “proximity talks” with the Assad regime. The failure to engage with those conditions undermined the recent Geneva discussions, which ground to a halt with no advance after less than five days. Meanwhile, Russia continued its intense bombing of north-west and southern Syria in support of regime/Iranian/Hezbollah ground offensives.

However, this is only on the surface. During the press conference that announced the deal, Lavrov made clear that Russia would not halt airstrikes: “The truce does not go for terrorists … The military operation against them will be continued.”

The proposal covers Moscow’s operations by allowing offensives on IS and Jabhat al-Nusra – but there is no guarantee that Russia will stick to these limits. Since the beginning of its strikes on September 30, Russia has used the pretext of attacking IS for a campaign in which more than 80% of operations have been on opposition-held territory. It has progressively expanded that rationale to “terrorists”, which conveniently seems to cover all anti-Assad groups.

With Jabhat al-Nusra operating in north-west Syria close to and sometimes alongside rebel factions, Russia can easily maintain this façade. A spokesman for the leading rebel group Ahrar al-Sham immediately predicted that Moscow would exploit the ISSG cover.

Despite Lavrov’s uncomfortable expression at the news conference announcing the deal, Russia has another layer of protection from a ceasefire it doesn’t really want. The ISSG proposal does not mandate the end to fighting, but only sets up a task force to consider “modalities”. It specifically says that implementation of those modalities is contingent on “confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition”.

Since 2012, the Assad regime has balked at any restriction of military operations. It undermined the short-lived 2012 UN monitoring force. Its use of chemical weapons, barrel-bombing, and cluster bombs – as well as mass killings of civilians in ground operations – have defied UN resolutions and international law. President Assad has clearly stated that political talks cannot begin without total defeat of “terrorists”.

The proposal to get aid into besieged areas does not guarantee relief for civilians, especially those cut off by the Syrian military. The ISSG only says that members will “use their influence with all parties on the ground” to seek aid deliveries. A “humanitarian task force” will consider a UN plan, but there is no mechanism to proceed if the Assad regime objects – as it generally has done whenever the UN has requested access to besieged areas.

Kerry and Lavrov said that the US and Russia will cooperate on airdrops of assistance to some areas, but given Moscow’s position, priority is being given to the regime-held areas in Deir ez-Zor Province. No arrangements have been set out for opposition towns and the Damascus suburbs.

The political game

Put bluntly, the ISSG plan is not for suffering Syrians. It is not for the opposition-rebel bloc, who are now threatened on the battlefield by a combination of the regime/Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah offensives, US-supported Kurdish forces, and the Islamic State.

Instead – beyond the Assad regime, which gets more breathing space after it was close to collapse a year ago – the beneficiaries are the US and Russian governments.

As has been the case since autumn 2013, when the US pulled back from a response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons, Kerry can show that something is being done – even if it’s unlikely to yield a desired outcome – by working with the Russians. He can continue for a few more weeks in the belief, whether genuinely held or cynically put forward, that a “political transition” will occur.

That transition is unlikely to ever begin, but Kerry can then find a scapegoat. As he said when asked by aid workers why he was not protecting civilians: “Don’t blame me – go and blame your opposition.”

That will suit the Russians just fine. They can maintain that they proposed the cessation of hostilities, even if the plan is hollow. When the opposition and rebels point out the defects, Moscow can ensure that Kerry “blames” that bloc for the “breakdown” of the process. And all the while, Russia’s air force can keep bombing, while Hezbollah, Iranian forces and Kurdish units erode the rebels’ hold on territory.

And only hours before the deal was agreed, Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to AFP in which he vowed to retake “the whole country”. What ceasefire?

The Conversation

Related Posts

14 COMMENTS

  1. But as with the ISSG’s plan set out in mid-December, this proposal makes no reference to the fate of President Bashar al-Assad and his inner circle.

    Why should it? The fate of Assad is no one’s business but Syria’s.

    A spokesman for the leading rebel group Ahrar al-Sham immediately predicted that Moscow would exploit the ISSG cover

    Ahrar Al Sham was founded by Al Qaeda. They supply weapons to and fight alongside Al Nusra. They are therefore a terrorist group.

    This agreement will further isolate Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

      • The Syrians already said to ASSad to get lost

        A minority with the help of a lot of foreign fighters. Polls show Assad still enjoys majority support.

        his Army doesn’t exist, only SHIA terrorist scum fights for him

        His army is kicking the buts of your jihadist heros.

        • The Jihadi heroes were kicking your shia scums who came from all over the globe ( Iran, lebanan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the impotent SAA) only now after the criminals (Russians) and with US support your shia scums are breathing again….but the Mujahideens will never allow the criminals to win this war….remember afghaniatan how the heroes there kicked out the russian pigs out of their land.

          • The Jihadi heroes were kicking your shia scums who came from all over the globe

            In your dreams. The Shia militias kicked Sunni jihadist butt in Iraq and Lebanon. There are no Shia to speak of in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

            The Sunni Johadi were getting their asses kicked in Syria took until reinforcements arrived from around the globe.

            .remember afghaniatan how the heroes there kicked out the russian pigs out of their land.

            Only because the US came to their aid and saved their Jihadi asses.

            • The shias in Iraq had upper hand because of massive US support to the shia scums…..

              In Syria the Jihadi warriors were near to capture of Damascus in 2012 untill massive support from the shia scums from all over the globe came to ASSad and his criminals rescue. Just a reminder of the many shia and alawati oppressing scums hunted down by Sunni warriors with very little outside support till date and with no end in sight to this war just imagine how many more are in que :)

              In Afghanistan US supported the Taliban and they kicked the russian pigs out of their country but now did the US won in Afghanistan since 2001…

              • No, the shias in Iraq had upper hand because they were the most powerful by a long shot without the Saddam’s monopoly on power and arms.

                In Syria the Jihadi warriors were near to capture of Damascus in 2012

                Wrong. They were nowhere near capture of Damascus in spite of tens of thousands of foreign head cutters and massive arms and financial support from Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah had taken care of the Sunni Jihadi scum bags

                There was no Taliban when the Soviets were driven out. Mind you the Taliban have kicked US butt. The Sunnis have no idea how to win a war.

  2. “Why should it? The fate of Assad is no one’s business but Syria’s.”

    Who is is Syria?. You talk about the country as if it were an “ens rationis”, some kind of conceptual entity.

    “Ahrar Al Sham was founded by Al Qaeda. They supply weapons to and fight alongside Al Nusra. They are therefore a terrorist group.”

    Lol, you are against them just because they oposse the puppet Assad. If Ahrar Al Sham or JN were pointing their guns to some yankee ally they would conquer your anti-imperialist heart in an instant.

    • The problem with your reasonning is that you equal the shia fighters with the jihadists.

      The shias are defending some cities besieged by jihadists. They don’t plan to conquer the whole world and don’t commig suicides attacks on civilians in the West just because they can.

      In other words, shia militias may have religion related motives, but it’s very localized and not a danger for the world. While your sunni jihadists are a global cancer that must be eradicated.

      The complete defeat of the syrian rebels would make the world better and safest. Think about it.

      • “The complete defeat of the syrian rebels would make the world better and safest. Think about it.”

        Maybe, but it will not make a better and safer world to all those syrians wich have rightly revolted against the puppet Assad.

        In any case the forces that you support have greatly contributed to the bringing about of the malthusian catastrophe you are predicting so you are not entitled to whine about it now that the building up of a really nasty karma has begining to bear fruit.

        • Maybe, but it will not make a better and safer world to all those syrians wich have rightly revolted against the puppet Assad.

          On the contrary. It’s the fact that Assad is not a puppet that the Saudis and Washington wanted him removed. And seeing as those Syrians represent a minority, they have no legitimacy. Clearly they would never get their way in a free and fair election so they have opted for violence.

    • Lol, you are against them just because they cc

      No I am against them because they are Jihadist fanatics who create destruction wherever they go and impose repressive laws on the populations they control.

      Of course, I could argue that you only support them because they oppose Assad.

      If Ahrar Al Sham or JN were pointing their guns to some yankee ally they would conquer your anti-imperialist heart in an instant.

      No. Unlike you, I consistently oppose Jihadists everywhere. You exemplify the pure absurdity of US foreign policy who supports Al Qaeda in Syria while opposing them in Iraq.

  3. What actually this 3 stooges is thinking…Imperialisme to humanity or act to save humanity.They are trying to bargain for thier portion…they are responsible for every brutal massacre and crime towards syrian civillian and sea of blood in the land of sham and all middle east.

Leave a Comment