Saturday marked the fifth anniversary of the Syrian conflict. What began as a peaceful protest demanding political reform in March 2011 led to a bloody conflict and subsequent civil war, killing over a quarter of a million civilians and creating Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since World War II, displacing almost half of the population.
UN backed peace talks both began and were suspended in early February.
Bashar al-Jaafari is the UN ambassador leading the Syrian government’s delegation. The opposition is represented by the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), a Saudi-backed coalition, and led by Mohammed Alloush. The Kurds in northern Syria are not formally represented, as the Kurdish political party PYD was not invited to participate, although the UN says they wish to expand the number of groups in attendance as negotiations proceed. The northern fighters are also not represented at all.
Peace talks reopened in Geneva last Monday, March 14, led by UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. The topics of concern were forming a new government and constitution in Syria, conducting an election, and coming to a compromise on the status on President Bashar al-Assad.
Conflict arose by day three. The opposition was prepared to meet face to face, but Jaafari rejected the idea of direct communication, calling the opposing team a “terrorist Saudi delegation headed by a murderer”. Senior negotiator Alloush has been deemed a terrorist by Russia and Iran.
It was always uncertain as to how productive these negotiations would be, as they have always failed in the past. However, Russia’s surprise withdrawal may be a push in the right direction.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement that, having largely achieved their objectives, Russia would be withdrawing most of its military contingent from Syria coincided with the reopening of negotiations. The first group of Russian planes left Hmeymin in Syria last Tuesday, March 15. Syrian representatives, including Jaafari, are adamant that this decision is of mutual agreement, as if to discourage the assumption that the allies are not getting along. “We were not surprised because the decision was made in coordination and consultation with us,” says Bouthaina Shaaban, Assad’s senior advisor. “We knew beforehand that this is what was going to be announced because the Russians came here to achieve certain jobs, and we and they agreed that most of the jobs have been achieved.” Russia goal was namely fighting terrorism, although critics believe their real intention was to help Assad eliminate his opposition, especially considering there has been so much bombing of civilian areas.
However, Putin was very clear that Russia air forces would continue to carry out air strikes against ISIS and other terrorist groups, would retain a contingent of military bases in Syria, and will return if the need arose. “If necessary, literally within a few hours, Russia can build up its contingent in the region to a size proportionate to the situation developing there and use the entire arsenal of capabilities at our disposal,” he said.
Russian air strikes began late last September, and to date have killed about 2000 rebel fighters, including seventeen rebel leaders. The number of Russian soldiers on the ground in Syria is not known, but American estimates suggest 3000-6000.
This political move is ambiguous is many ways.
What exactly does it mean that Russia is withdrawing its military contingent? In theory, air strikes should cease accordingly. However, just this Saturday, March 19, Russian air strikes occured near a national hospital, former army base, and other neighbourhoods in the ISIS-held city of Raqqa, and air strikes continued on Sunday. At the time of writing, the death toll has risen to 55, of which most are civilians. This may have been an anti-terror move, but the evidence that the air strikes hit residential areas in “one of Raqqa’s most congested streets” suggests otherwise.
Mohammed Alloush has commented on Russia’s withdrawal: “By saying they can return to Syria within four hours, it is clear it is not really even a partial withdrawl…They said they were targeting terrorists but really they were targeting civilians. Even when they target Raqqa, as they did this weekend, they target civilians. A war like this cannot be won from the air.”
Other countries are also very uncertain as to what Putin is trying to achieve with this surprise maneuver, although Putin has said, “I hope today’s decision will be a good signal for all conflicting parties. I hope it will sizeably increase trust of all participants in the process.”
Donald Jensen, a former US diplomat who worked in Moscow, told Al Jazeera, “I think Russia is committed to keeping him in power. There are conceivably circumstances where they’d throw him under the bus. But in their own mind they are fighting for a principle, which is a sovereignty of nation states from outside intervention.
“However, I think this action is also sending a message to Assad that ‘you still depend on us’, and I don’t think the Russians have been particularly happy with Assad’s reluctance to talk to the opposition.”
One can hope that this will put pressure on the Syrian government to reach some sort of agreement with its people. Opposition group spokesman Salim al-Muslet sounds optimistic, believing that a lack of Russian presence will decrease crime in the country, and says that Putin “should put pressure on Assad to accept [the] outcome” of the peace talks.
Still, negotiations have been slow going for many reasons. As stated earlier, the parties are unwilling to speak face to face. The opposition delegation has says they will assess the effectiveness of indirect peace talks at the end of this week, and decide whether or not to continue with the current process. De Mistura has optimistically said that the system has allowed talks to continue “with no walk-outs, no excessive rhetoric, and no breakdowns.”
But there is a very strong disconnect between each party’s desired outcome. The current issue is the question of Assad’s fate, and de Mistura will have to be very cautious to ensure that peace talks do not collapse. He has called political transition “the mother of all issues”, but has not directly addressed the question of Assad.
The opposition believes that Assad can have no part in a new transitional body, but Jaafari says they are using talk of removing Assad to “sabotage this round” before it begins. He believes that political transition and Assad’s fate are “two separate issues”.
The US and other western countries have always agreed with the opposition that Assad must depart from power, while Russia and the Syrian government obviously believe otherwise.
This controversial question was the reason UN peace efforts failed in 2012 and 2014.
Leave a Reply