Why the Syria ceasefire is a long shot
The proposed cessation in Syria is a long shot that will miss the mark of bringing peace to the war-devastated country. Because Washington and its allies are not interested in peace. They want regime change – by hook or by crook.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively
on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master’s graduate in
Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society
of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper
journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news
media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a
freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik,
Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
Published time: 14 Feb, 2016 15:14
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry and UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura (L-R)
attend a news conference after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG)
meeting in Munich, Germany, February 12, 2016 © Michael Dalder / Reuters
An end to the Syrian conflict is desperately needed.
But the latest plan for a cessation of violence is unlikely to take hold, as
the deal struck by international powers is based on fundamentally opposing
premises.
In short, Washington and its allies want regime
change, while Russia and Iran insist that President Bashar Assad and his
government are the legitimate ruling authorities in Syria. All sides are
mandated by UN resolutions to respect the sovereign will of the Syrian people –
to determine the political future of their country.
But the Western powers and their regional partners,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in particular, are insisting – explicitly or
implicitly – on their objective of ousting Assad. This premise of unlawful
interference in the affairs of a sovereign state is the crux of the problem,
and why the latest seeming agreement for a nationwide truce is as thin as the
paper it is written on.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov announced the proposal for a cessation of hostilities
following six hours of negotiations with 15 other member states belonging to
the International Syria Support Group in Munich last Friday. The truce is
supposed to come into effect later this week.
Read more
The truce outlined in an ISSG communique does not
apply to two militant groups: Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIL/ISIL or
Daesh) and the Jabhat al Nusra Front. Both are linked to Al Qaeda and are
officially listed by international governments as terrorist organizations. The
provision also exempts “other terror groups” but does not specify the
names. This is a major loophole in the proposed truce deal which will make its
application extremely problematic if not infeasible. That loophole also alludes
to the foreign-backed nature of the conflict in Syria.
Following the Munich communique, the Syrian government
and its Russian ally both said that their combined military operations against
terror groups would continue.
President Assad vowed that his armed forces were moving ahead with their
offensive, backed by Russian air power, to “retake the whole country.”
He said the battle for the northern city of Aleppo – the country’s largest –
was crucial to “cut off terrorist supply routes from Turkey.”
Given the delineation of terror groups in the Munich
communique and in recent UN resolutions (2249 and 2254), it would appear
incontestable that the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies
have every right to maintain the military momentum.
Yet Syria and Russia’s continued offensive around
Aleppo over the weekend provoked recriminations from Western powers. Western
media coverage tended to portray the continuation of military operations as a
bad faith breach of the tentative truce.
Reuters news agency reported: “Russia keeps
bombing despite Syria truce; Assad vows to fight on.”
Secretary Kerry expressed irritation when he said: “If the Assad regime does not live up to its
responsibilities and if the Iranians and the Russians do not hold Assad to the
promises that they have made... then the international community obviously is
not going to sit there like fools and watch this. There will be an increase of
activity to put greater pressure on them.”
BREAKING UPDATE: Damascus confirms its army targeted by Turkey shelling on.rt.com/74hq
Kerry even warned that “greater pressure” could
involve foreign troops being sent into Syria, without naming from which
countries, saying: “There is a possibility there will be additional ground
troops.”
The top American diplomat made the comments while
attending the Munich Security Conference along with several world leaders, held
the day after the truce deal was brokered by the ISSG. Kerry told delegates ominously: “We hope this week
can be a week of change. This moment is a hinge point. Decisions made in the
coming days, weeks and months can end the war in Syria. Or, if the wrong
choices are made, they can open the door to even wider conflict.”
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev also addressed
the Munich conference, but he warned that any ground invasion in Syria by
foreign forces ran the grave risk of unleashing an all-out war.
Over the weekend, it was reported that Saudi F-16 warplanes are to begin flying
out of Turkey’s NATO base at Incirlik, allegedly on combat operations against
the Islamic State terror group in Syria. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut
Cavusoglu said that a combined Saudi-Turkish ground force was ready to
intervene in Syria, and there were reports of cross-border Turkish artillery
shelling of Syrian Kurdish sites.
The nub of the proposed truce is that Syria and Russia
are legally entitled to eradicate ISIS, Al Nusra and related groups.
Strategically, too, it can be argued that the defeat of such illegally armed
insurgents is a priority task in creating conditions for an end to the
five-year conflict.
However, “the related terror groups” also
include many other militants whom Western governments and Western media
mendaciously refer to as “moderate rebels.” So, while the
Syrian Arab Army and Russian fighter planes can legitimately make the case that
these groups are to be targeted, Washington and its allies will deceptively
allege that Moscow is attacking “moderate rebels.”
This is a risible fiction constructed by Western
governments, their regional partners and the Western media. It is well
documented that groups like Jaish al-Islam, Jaish al-Fateh, Ahrar al-Sham and
Farouq Brigade – heavily sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar – are integrated
with the officially recognized Al Qaeda terrorist organizations. Even the
so-called “secular” Free Syrian Army – much championed by Washington
– is in league with ISIS and Al Nusra, as are the Turkmen brigades openly supported by the Turkish government.
US government-owned news outlet Voice of America described the terror-rebel connection in the following
delicate way: “The Munich deal writes out any cessation of hostilities for
not only the Islamic State but [al Qaeda] affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra or other
groups deemed terrorists by the UN Security Council. Some of those groups,
aside from IS, have been battlefield allies of other rebel factions around
Aleppo.”
‘Turkey wants to stop Kurds liberating northern Syria from ISIS’ (Op-Edge) on.rt.com/74hd
Meanwhile, the Washington Post admitted that Jabhat al-Nusra “in some instances
fights alongside rebel forces supported by the United States and its allies.” The
Post article added that even in the event of a truce taking hold: “The
United States and its partners would continue their current level of equipping
and training the opposition so as not to leave the rebels at a disadvantage if
the cessation of hostilities collapses.”
The cessation that Washington has assiduously tried to
craft is not premised on finding a genuine end to the conflict. Rather, it is
evidently a tactical pause to afford proxy forces on the ground badly needed
respite from the Syrian-Russian onslaught. That onslaught is threatening to
wipe out the myriad terror- and terrorist-related brigades.
That’s why John Kerry has been so concerned to stymie
Russia’s intervention. That intervention ordered by President Vladimir Putin
less than five months ago is wiping out terror assets that Washington and its
allies have invested in for regime change in Syria over five years. That
investment is going up in smoke, and that is also why Washington and its
regional partners Turkey and Saudi Arabia are reserving a direct military
contingency – in order to salvage their regime-change project.
The proposed cessation in Syria is a long shot that
will miss the mark of bringing peace to the war-devastated country. Because
Washington and its allies are not interested in peace. They want regime change
– by hook or by crook.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this
column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
RT.
No comments:
Post a Comment