A ceasefire in Syria is pure fantasy
When
it comes to supporting ceasefires, Russia has a dismal record - so why would
Syria be any different?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Luke
Coffey is a research fellow specialising in transatlantic and Eurasian security
at a Washington DC based think tank. He previously served as a special adviser
to the British defence secretary and was a commissioned officer in the United
States army.
Monday's announcement by the US and Russia of a so-called
"cessation of hostilities" in Syria is the second such proposal in as
many weeks. The first proposal for a cessation of hostilities ended last week
before it even began. But if all goes to plan, the fighting in Syria will stop,
or at least be drastically reduced, starting on midnight, Saturday, February
27.
Do not hold your breath.
How the cessation of hostilities will work in practice, and how
it will turn into a more permanent ceasefire in war-torn Syria, remains to be
seen.
|
US and Russia agree on Syria cessation of hostilities
|
Who is a terrorist?
The so-called International Syria Support Group (ISSG), a group
of international countries and organisations hoping to bring a resolution to
the civil war, has been tasked with finding a consensus on what constitutes a
terrorist group in Syria.
However, beyond identifying ISIL and al-Nusra Front as terrorist
organisations there is little consensus among the ISSG.
This lack of consensus on what groups fighting in Syria are
terrorist organisations will be the loophole that allows Russia to continue its
support for Assad's military offensive in places around Aleppo.
It will also be the loophole that will allow Turkey to continue
shelling the Kurdish People's Protection Units, or YPG.
|
Perhaps
the single biggest limiting factor for an enduring cessation of hostilities
in Syria is the fact that the two external power brokers, the US and Russia,
have neither credibility nor clout in the region.
|
Perhaps the YPG is the best example of how chaotic the situation
on the ground has become in Syria. The YPG is the armed wing of the Syrian
Kurdish group the Democratic Union Party or the PYD.
The YPG is simultaneously: fighting and making gains against
ISIL and other rebel groups in Syria, being attacked by US ally and Russian
adversary Turkey, fighting Russian-backed Syrian forces, and is being armed by
both the US and the Russians. Not confusing enough?
In the case of the YPG, the US and Russia are essentially
fighting proxy wars against themselves. It would be farcical if the situation
wasn't so serious.
No credibility
As if the impasse over agreeing over the terrorist list was not
bad enough, perhaps the single biggest limiting factor for an enduringcessation
of hostilities in Syria is the fact that the two external power brokers, the US
and Russia, have neither credibility nor clout in the region.
US influence in the Middle East is at its lowest point in
decades. Look at the way US President Barack Obama handled the drawdown from
Iraq in 2010, Washington's relations with Israel, and the flawed Iran Deal
which left America's Gulf allies out to dry.
The sum of these policy decisions has left US commitment
questioned and US influence diminished across the region.
Russia, on the other hand, has zero credibility at implementing
past ceasefires. Almost seven years later Moscow is still in direct violation
of the six-point ceasefire plan that ended its five-day invasion of the
Republic of Georgia.
 |
|
Kurdish YPG fighter [EPA]
|
The so-called Minsk II ceasefire agreement in eastern Ukraine is
violated literally every day by Russian-backed separatists. Moscow regularly
eggs on both Azerbaijan and Armenia over the latter's occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh by selling both sides in the conflict billions of dollars'
worth of weaponry.
When it comes to supporting ceasefires, Russia has a dismal
record. Why would Syria be any different?
Pure fantasy
The idea that a cessation of hostilities in Syria can be
enforced is pure fantasy. There is no political will for an international
peacekeeping force. There is not even consensus on something as basic who is a
terrorist and who us not.
Turkey will continue striking the YPG. Russia will continue
striking the many Salafist Sunni groups fighting against the Assad regime. The
US and Europe will continue pretending there is a cozy moderate third option to
support between Assad on one hand and groups such as ISIL on the other.
The brutal truth is that the civil war has been left to rot and
fester for so long that there is very little the US or even Russia can do to
engineer a cessation of hostilities, much less a full-blown ceasefire,
armistice or peaceful outcome.
Last minute push
One year ago, during the so-called Mink II ceasefire
negotiations, a battle was raging over control of a Ukrainian city and
strategic railroad junction called Debaltseve.
A ceasefire was finally agreed for February 15 - but
the Russian-backed separatists had unfinished business in Debaltseve and
continued fighting until they captured the city on the 18th.
The upcoming cessation of hostilities in Syria will be no
different.
Between now and February 27, Russian-backed Syrian forces
will make a last-minute push on Aleppo. If Syrian forces cannot mop up the
defenders of Aleppo (many of whom, by the way, are far from being the
"moderates" talked about so much in the Western media) by this
Saturday, then Moscow will use its "terrorist loophole" to continue
the air strikes.
The proposed cessation of hostilities is not worth the paper
it's written on. Sadly for the innocent civilians caught in the fighting, the
killing is likely to continue.
Luke Coffey is
a research fellow specialising in transatlantic and Eurasian security at a
Washington DC-based think-tank. He previously served as a special adviser to
the British defence secretary and was a commissioned officer in the United
States Army.
The views
expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
Response:
This editorial
discusses the proposed cease-fire that has been agreed upon in Syria. One quick
assumption this article makes, is that the audience is informed of what is
going on in Syria. Even in the beginning it dives straight into arguments on
why this ceasefire is not likely to last. As you read the article, the
journalist gives more details on Syria's civil war, but it is necessary to have
prior knowledge on this matter. With that said, I personally did not have
enough prior knowledge on the Syrian civil war to fully understand this
article, so some outside research on it was needed. This article challenged me
to think very critically because as an editorial, the journalist heavily
emphasized their opinion. The great amount of opinions in editorials makes it
harder to form your own opinion as you read the article. However, I tried to
stay objective by looking at how other sources perceive this ceasefire.
Additionally, Turkey is not optimistic about the ceasefire. They do not want to
take part in it, saying that the United States and Russia announced it. They
welcome the truce, but they don't see it being respected by all parties. On the
other hand, the U.S secretary of state insists that the ceasefire will be
successful. He claims that the world powers involved will bring about a
temporary truce despite the skepticism from others. One of the journalist's
main argument as to why the current ceasefire will not last is the instability
of the international powers. It is an interesting take, but I think his points
are heavily influenced by his background and worldview. The journalist, Luke
Coffey, is a research fellow specializing in transatlantic and Eurasian
security at a Washington DC based think tank. He also served as a special
adviser to the British defense secretary. That means has been trained to
research and analyze information. In his editorial, he brings up specific
examples from Russia's past when they disregarded ceasefire agreements. He
argues that because of their record, there is no guarantee that this will be
the agreement that Russia will adhere to. As he supports his arguments with
evidence of Russia's flakiness, he makes the assumption that his audience not
knows those accounts but would also agree that Russia is inconsistent. One
example is when he mentioned the Minsk II ceasefire, "The so-called Minsk
II ceasefire agreement in eastern Ukraine is violated every day by
Russian-backed separatists." This audience would have to be very
knowledgeable on such aspects. Coffey also explains that the U.S is quite
inconsistent and hasn't handled relations with Syria as well as they once did.
Coffey does not hold back on his criticism of Barack Obama. He bluntly said
that, "Look at the way US President Barack Obama handled the drawdown from
Iraq in 2010." He assumes that we agree with him regarding Obama's lack of
diplomacy. By starting with the word, 'look' Coffey implies that even if we
don't agree with his argument we will see the logic in it. Reading this article
not only challenged my views on this matter but also pushed me to research
other sources. From all the research I am also skeptical about this ceasefire.
The fact that Turkey also has doubts about the agreement as well as Russia's
history makes me really question the stability of the ceasefire. However, for
peace I hope that it does actually work. Furthermore, I hope it is a gateway to
end the civil war in Syria. We can only hope that on a larger scale people who
read this article will push for peace. Anyone who has involvement countries in
the conflict could make a difference. Hopefully, this article will spur people
to advocate for this ceasefire agreement and further peace in Syria.
Source:
Coffey, Luke. "A Ceasefire in Syria Is Pure Fantasy." Aljazeera. 2016 Al Jazeera Media Network, 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
