Syrian truce deal: A beginning of peace

The United States-Russia agreement five years into the bloody Syrian civil war on a week-long ceasefire starting Monday evening as Id celebrations begin is a small ray of light in an otherwise bleak outlook. For one thing, the ceasefire needs to hold although Moscow has assured Washington it has President Bashar al-Assad’s assent. As if to mock the ceasefire, Syrian and allied warplanes killed score of civilians in Idlib and Alleppo.

The High Negotiating Committee (HNC), an umbrella group supported by the West and Gulf states, unveiled its own peace plan but welcomed the ceasefire. The other Opposition group was more sceptical, doubting Moscow’s ability to force President Assad to stop the war.

Given the Syrian situation, scepticism is in order but a few takeaways from the deal are clear. It is a diplomatic victory for Russia as Moscow had militarily intervened on President Assad’s side to assert its wider regional and world interests, and the deal came about with Washington treating Moscow as an equal partner.

Five years of war have destroyed Syrian cities, left hundreds of thousands dead and half its population either domestically displaced or seeking shelter in different parts of the world. As if the cup of misery were not full enough, Turkey intervened militarily for the first time, though its main aim was not the Islamic State but Syrian Kurds who were exploiting Damascus’ weakness to form self-governing enclaves.

The dilemma for the United States was that it supported Syrian Kurds through air support as they represented the best ground fighting force. Faced with a dilemma, Washington sided with Turkey while Syrian Kurds felt they had again been shortchanged, having lost out to other powers building on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has his own Kurds (grouped under PKK), having abandoned a truce in favour of suppressing them.

The United States has its limitations due to its aversion to re-entering the Middle East except though an air war after the Iraq fiasco. It is presenting a bulwark largely against Islamic State. The other outside powers have their own fish to fry. Russia is only too willing to curtail its role, given its economic circumstances, as long as its role in the Middle East and the world is recognised. Syria gives it a window on the Mediterranean and a world presence.

If the ceasefire holds, it would provide a desperate people essential food and medical supplies. The next step must revert to the Geneva conference table in an attempt to separate the various strands that go to make up the Syrian imbroglio. Without a reassessment of the West’s relations with Russia, the ceasefire deal with Moscow would not have been possible. The US presidential campaign and the approaching end of the Obama presidency would seem to rule out radical steps by Washington at this stage. And the other actors, Iran and the Hezbollah guerrillas, are on the same side as Moscow.

Under the plan put forward by the High Negotiating Committee, meeting under the aegis of the British foreign office, a six-month negotiating period has been offered. It would govern the country for 18 months and President Assad should step aside as soon as it was formed. There lies the rub, as Mr Assad has consistently refused to step aside and the Russians would have to agree to such a proposal.

In the region, the scenario is dependent upon the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states against Iran and its Hezbollah allies overlaid by the Shia-Sunni schism. There are no short-term measures that can immediately relieve the tensions. But there is a new wind blowing in Riyadh on the coming to power of the new King and his confidant. There is at least some thought being given to the long-term economic future of the Saudi kingdom, relying overwelmingly on oil revenue. There also seems to be the beginning of a process of recognition that the fortune the kingdom spends on spreading Wahhabi Islam around the world is becoming counter-productive.

The developed world is on a short fuse in view of the rash of terrorist incidents claimed on behalf of Islamic State. One consequence has been the rise of the right wing in German politics for the first time since 1945.

Keeping the pot simmering in the Middle East is no longer the answer to everyone’s prayers. The longer the ferment continues, the situation is likely to get more complicated. Saudi Arabia seems unsuitable to fill the vacuum that will grow as the process of American withdrawal from the Middle East proceeds apace.

Indeed, future generations will wonder how an enlightened age could tolerate years of mass murder while safeguarding their selfish interests. The Arab Spring perhaps came too early or too late. Except for Tunisia, where it all began, no other Arab country swept by revolutionary rhetoric and action has been able to weather the storm, except to revert to the traditional rule of autocrats. Egypt’s record of one year of Muslim Brotherhood rule was a failure because it did not know how to rule and highlighted its own ideology in preference to governance.

Syria is a warning light indicating more troubling times for the Arab world as dictatorship cannot provide an answer to sociological and economic problems. Even the Syrian Opposition is deeply divided, either gyrating to the winds of its various sponsors or living for the moment.

India has displayed some faint interest in Syria by sending its junior foreign minister to Damascus. But the stakes for the main protagonists is high, and the next important steps will be determined by how far the new truce fares, apart from providing much needed succour to the unfortunate people of Syria.

The world will hope that although peace seems to be a long way away, a beginning can be made in bringing the country back to civilisation.