International agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria and the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid has been greeted with scepticism and hostility. Even John Kerry, the US secretary of state, who announced the Munich deal early on Friday morning, sounded dubious about “paper commitments”.
Eight hours of diplomatic haggling in the Bavarian capital produced less than the “all or nothing” outcome that Kerry had promised. The International Syria Support Group (ISSG) settled for a fragile outcome based on the lowest common denominator – hardly surprising for a body composed of the staunchest supporters and bitterest enemies of Bashar al-Assad.
Not only is a cessation of hostilities less solid than a formal ceasefire, there is no provision for monitoring or enforcement. And even that was deferred for a week – albeit sooner than the 1 March date that Moscow had floated. But there was no mention of the Russian airstrikes that have brought Syrian rebels to the point of despair. Working out the modalities for a cessation involves some thorny questions:Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra are formally excluded from any ceasefire, so that requires a “ceasefire taskforce” chaired by the US and Russia to delineate territory held by them.
Free Syrian Army units will likely be asked to provide intelligence on al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, which often holds adjacent sectors to them on the frontlines. The Americans will pass the intelligence on to the Russians to agree on location and targeting. “That’s an invitation to civil war,” one Syrian analyst warned. Al-Nusra, with a strong presence in west Aleppo and Idlib, will be the main sticking point. Julien Barnes-Dacey of the European Council on Foreign Relations said: “It will be hard to actually produce ceasefires where it most counts – or for the west to meaningfully pressure Russia on this front.”
No comments:
Post a Comment