| Financial Times | - |
The desperate conflict in Syria
has triggered another flurry of diplomacy, with Russia suggesting it is
now driving ahead plans for a political solution as robust as its
recent military intervention.
Russia’s diplomatic plan conveys a lack of seriousness on its stated intent to battle Isis
T
FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
Western
policymakers and strategists are trying to figure out what Vladimir
Putin’s military goals are in Syria — and if he intends to help the
Assad regime regain territory lost to opposition forces
Further reading
Russia’s priority has been to bomb those rebel forces that have
been fighting both the Assad regime and Isis — the principal target of
the US-led coalition since the jihadis declared their cross-border
caliphate in Syria and Iraq in 2014. Far from joining the fight against
Isis, Moscow is concerned to secure and expand the Assad regime’s
shrinking rump state. Western and Arab officials responsible for Syria
policy report that the vast majority of Russian air strikes have
targeted non-Isis forces.
These forces include the Free Syrian Army backed by the west, and Islamist militia supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. Mr Lavrov last week complained the US was refusing to supply the positions on the ground held by this putative “patriotic opposition”. Given that Russian jets have had little difficulty targeting non-Isis rebels so far, from killing their commanders to destroying their hospitals, this was presumably either a satirical touch or throwing yet more sand in people’s eyes.
Of course, it is discomfiting to all external parties to Syria’s viciously complicated conflict to categorise some of their allies. The west, for example, regards Assad regime allies such as the Iran-backed Hizbollah paramilitaries of Lebanon or some Iraqi Shia militia as terrorists. Moscow for its part describes as terrorists Ahrar al-Sham, backed by Turkey but allied with Jabhat al-Nusra, the local al-Qaeda branch supported from the Gulf; it often claims the Free Syrian Army does not exist.
Yet no nine-point plan is going to make headway with any of this — especially since about the only point discussed so far is Moscow’s insistence that Mr Assad, regarded by much of his Sunni majority population as a war criminal, must stay on through an interim transition. If the Kremlin really does perceive the well-financed millenarian jihadism of Isis as a regional and global threat, then a more immediate, say, three-point plan might show it is serious about addressing it.
Renewed support for Assad triggers alarm over Putin’s intentions, while Washington is under pressure to end the war
Read more
First, start attacking Isis, which Moscow says is the only
alternative to the Assad regime. “Just do Isis first, and then, when we
see them pushed back, we can get on and talk about [the transition] and
whether Assad stays for a period of time”, as one western diplomat
involved in the Syria talks puts it.
Second, stop targeting non-Isis rebels and the barrel-bombing of civilians in rebel enclaves. That would also help ensure a safe zone in the north-west for millions of internally displaced Syrians. Instead, there is a danger that Aleppo could be encircled. Already more than 100,000 people have fled this northern city — an omen of the bigger exodus that could happen.
Third, Russia, like all external actors in Syria (except Isis), is committed to a unitary state restored to its original borders. In practice it is reinforcing the de facto partition of the country by fortifying the Assad statelet. Moscow, and Washington — which is backing Syria’s Kurds across the north — need to start thinking now about viable forms of decentralised local leadership that might eventually coalesce nationally.
These three points are all part of the same point, which can no longer be disguised by smoke and mirrors: the survival of Syria and its diverse people and the defeat of Isis.
he
desperate conflict in Syria has triggered another flurry of diplomacy,
with Russia suggesting it is now driving ahead plans for a political
solution as robust as its recent military intervention.
There is no sign of anything more hopeful on this bleak horizon so the
US and its partners could do worse than call the Kremlin’s bluff — on
the allegedly clear goals that President Vladimir Putin contrasts with Washington’s fog of indecision and adventurist backing of Syrian rebels.
During his annual Valdai gathering in Sochi last week, Mr Putin said that, at his recent meeting in Moscow with Bashar al-Assad,
he had won the Syrian president over to the idea of supporting rebel
groups if they were willing to fight the jihadis of Isis. Little is
known of what transpired at this meeting, not least because Mr Assad was
spirited out of Damascus without his entourage. So Mr Putin won
attention in Sochi when he said he would “pull open the curtain a little
on my talks with President Assad”.
More
On this topic
- US to step up strikes on Isis oilfields
- Russia calls for fresh Syrian elections
- Power to the people
- Putin leverages air strikes in Assad visit
David Gardner
Sign up now
The Russian president said he asked Mr Assad: “What view would you take if we found, now in Syria,
an armed opposition which nonetheless was ready to oppose and really
fight against terrorists, against Islamic State [Isis]? What would be
your view if we were to support their efforts in fighting Islamic State
in the same way we are supporting the Syrian army?” Mr Putin reported
that Mr Assad said he “would view that positively”, and that as a result
“we are now thinking about this and are trying, if it works out, to
reach these agreements”.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, later
glossed the armed groups to which his boss referred as units of a still
undefined “patriotic opposition”. He then proceeded to magic out of the
thin mountain air a nine-point plan to take to Vienna, where he met last
Friday with John Kerry, US secretary of state, and the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who are due to meet again this Friday.
The ostensible clarity of Russia’s démarche would be more convincing
if it were not based on a narrative so manifestly at odds with the
facts. A nine-point diplomatic road map, moreover, does not convey
substance so much as a lack of seriousness — at least, not enough
seriousness to prioritise effectively. In depth
Syria crisisFurther reading
These forces include the Free Syrian Army backed by the west, and Islamist militia supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. Mr Lavrov last week complained the US was refusing to supply the positions on the ground held by this putative “patriotic opposition”. Given that Russian jets have had little difficulty targeting non-Isis rebels so far, from killing their commanders to destroying their hospitals, this was presumably either a satirical touch or throwing yet more sand in people’s eyes.
Of course, it is discomfiting to all external parties to Syria’s viciously complicated conflict to categorise some of their allies. The west, for example, regards Assad regime allies such as the Iran-backed Hizbollah paramilitaries of Lebanon or some Iraqi Shia militia as terrorists. Moscow for its part describes as terrorists Ahrar al-Sham, backed by Turkey but allied with Jabhat al-Nusra, the local al-Qaeda branch supported from the Gulf; it often claims the Free Syrian Army does not exist.
Yet no nine-point plan is going to make headway with any of this — especially since about the only point discussed so far is Moscow’s insistence that Mr Assad, regarded by much of his Sunni majority population as a war criminal, must stay on through an interim transition. If the Kremlin really does perceive the well-financed millenarian jihadism of Isis as a regional and global threat, then a more immediate, say, three-point plan might show it is serious about addressing it.
US-Russia: The battle for Syria
Read more
Second, stop targeting non-Isis rebels and the barrel-bombing of civilians in rebel enclaves. That would also help ensure a safe zone in the north-west for millions of internally displaced Syrians. Instead, there is a danger that Aleppo could be encircled. Already more than 100,000 people have fled this northern city — an omen of the bigger exodus that could happen.
Third, Russia, like all external actors in Syria (except Isis), is committed to a unitary state restored to its original borders. In practice it is reinforcing the de facto partition of the country by fortifying the Assad statelet. Moscow, and Washington — which is backing Syria’s Kurds across the north — need to start thinking now about viable forms of decentralised local leadership that might eventually coalesce nationally.
These three points are all part of the same point, which can no longer be disguised by smoke and mirrors: the survival of Syria and its diverse people and the defeat of Isis.
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment