THE TRUCE IN SYRIA IS NO SUCH THING

Any inkling of some semblance of peace in Syria following the bombastic “cessation of hostilities” announcements by the men in charge of US and Russian foreign relations last week was short-lived indeed. Granted, in his public pronouncement of an agreement reached more by the Syrian War’s external agents than by its direct belligerents, US Secretary of State John Kerry did everything he could to dissuade anybody of the idea that what was to be implemented was “a ceasefire”. He said that the parties involved were more comfortable with the more ballpark term of “cessation of hostilities”.

Even that term, however, proved a total misnomer. It quickly became clear that last week’s Syrian “peace” charade was really a case of unhelpful superpower intervention in a conflict that has gone from a warranted popular uprising against a tyrannical four-decade old regime to being the latest proxy-war battlefield for the new cold war between Russia and the West and for the burgeoning rivalries among major Middle East powers.  Furthermore, it didn’t take long for many analysts to see through the false humanitarian rhetoric and to understand that the proposed “cessation” doesn’t preclude continued airstrikes by the US-led coalition or—more importantly still—by Russia.

In reality, the so-called “cessation of hostilities” is no more than an expression of desire, a mere proposal for some form of truce so as to permit “immediate and sustained humanitarian access to reach all people in need throughout Syria...” But the principal architects of the agreement—superpowers Russia and the US—have made it clear that they are placing themselves above any ceasefire terms. In fact, at a press conference announcing the agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov bluntly stated that there would be no quarter “for terrorists” and that Russia would continue its brutal airstrikes against all groups that it considers to be such.

The cessation proposal emerged from the so-called International Syria Support Group or ISSG—a 17-country grab-bag of interests including Russia, the United States, the Arab League and the European Union, plus the United Nations.  But it seems clear that Moscow and Washington are calling the shots, and although optimists might cheer US-Russian “cooperation” in putting aside their mutual rivalries to seek humanitarian solutions to the Syrian people’s misery, pessimists might well argue that their joint role in the ISSG proposal reeks of something more akin to collusion, with neither giving ground on their own strategic goals but tacitly giving a nod to staying out of each other’s way.

This does not bode well for Syrian civilians living in areas held by the Islamic State terrorist organization, since their potential fate is to become “collateral damage” as the American-led coalition continues its bombing campaign against ISIL. And it most certainly bodes ill for legitimate opposition groups against the Assad regime since Russia considers all who confront Assad to be “terrorists”, a threat to Russian strategic interests in the Middle East and, therefore, subject to devastating attack by Russian air power. Judging from Russia’s actions up to now, the fact that such “terrorists” live and operate within areas inhabited by innocent civilians including women and children, seems to be of little or no consequence to the Russian command.  And Lavrov made it abundantly clear that his country’s airstrikes on Syrian targets will continue unabated despite his dramatic announcement of the “cessation of hostilities”.   

The ISSG plan for “a nationwide cessation of hostilities” in Syria starting next week calls for “a halt to military operations”...except, that is, those against ISIL, those against another jihadist group known as Jabhat al-Nusra, and those against “other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council”. This last is a catch-all phrase that would appear to give Russia, one of the five permanent members of that Security Council, a fairly free hand to hit anybody who is advancing on the Assad regime’s military positions. And a confident Bashar al-Assad has unabashedly proclaimed—with the Russian bear standing firm behind him—that he will take back every bit of territory his regime has lost to its opponents.

The ISSG proposal sets out a six-month goal for the start of actual talks between the regime and its opponents as a means of setting a “political transition” in motion. The long-term goal is for Syria to have a new non-sectarian constitution and “free and fair elections” within two years from now.

But the proposal contains little explanation of how to get from point A to point B in the absence of any real and sustainable ceasefire controlled by UN peacekeepers, especially when both Assad and Lavrov’s statements make it clear neither Russia nor the Assad regime has any intention of halting military action against nationalist opposition groups, nor is there any explanation whatsoever as to what the destiny of Bashar al-Assad and principal agents of his regime might be. That said, it seems clear that Moscow isn’t going to sacrifice the kind of decades-old strategic Middle East ally that the autocratic Assad family has been, least of all at a time when tensions between Russia and the West are at their highest since the days before the Berlin Wall fell. And Assad himself has said repeatedly that he will not submit to talks with the opposition until armed “terrorists” have been entirely defeated.

If the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on ISIL-held positions in Syria have brought a new level of risk to civilians in those areas, not only because of the potential for collateral damage but also because of forcing retreating ISIL fighters into new areas, where they can blend with the civilian population and regroup, there is mounting evidence that Russian airstrikes are a direct threat to civilians and to non-military targets in areas held by Syrian nationalist rebels. It would appear clear that Russia has been deceitful in claiming to be targeting the jihadists of ISIL and  Jabhat al-Nusra while some reports tend to indicate that eight out of ten of its strikes have actually hit targets linked to nationalist rebels fighting Assad.

Not even the humanitarian aid segment of the plan—the raison d'être behind the agreement—is clearly articulated. One of the weapons that Assad has used continuously against his own people—in addition to internationally prohibited poison gas, nail and shrapnel-filled barrel bombs and also banned cluster bombs—has been starvation and deprivation of any and all humanitarian aid. He has done this by setting up military blockades around rebel-held areas to keep food and medical supplies from getting in and has, more often than not, turned back any convoys seeking to enter these areas, while not only combatants but civilian men, women and children as well have literally been starving to death. Despite this history of heartless authoritarian cruelty, the ISSG plan says only that in seeking to ensure that humanitarian aid gets through, the UN and other signers of the pact will “use their influence with all parties on the ground” to get past the regime’s blockades. But in the end, Assad remains the final gatekeeper when it comes to deciding whether humanitarian aid is provided or not, and clearly, his record on this count has been less than stellar. 

So whom does this much-heralded ISSG proposal benefit? Certainly not nationalist opposition forces fighting Assad. On the contrary, the ostensible “cessation” provides Assad with much needed oxygen while putting international pressure on the rebels to respect the truce and providing Russia with ample cover under which to continue to bomb the regime’s opponents into submission. And certainly not the Syrian people as a whole, who are being taunted with a “paper truce” that, in real terms, on the ground, is no such thing.

As always up to now, the ISSG plan appears to be an outgrowth of superpower special interests in the Middle East in general and in Syria in particular and any benefit derived by the beleaguered and martyred Syrian people promises to be a mere coincidence.