Connect with us

Middle East

Truce and violation in Syria: USA-Russia clash, UN helpless, genocides likely to continue

Published

on

The so-called “Arab Spring” which got entire Mideast (except nuclear Israel) destabilized, while in Syria the incumbent president Assad is still defiant, adamant, and refusing to step down. The USA and Russia back opposing sides in Syria’s five-year civil war, which has left more than 250,000 people dead and displaced more than 11 million others.

USA and the Syrian opposition seek the removal of President Assad from power as their main condition for permanent peace in Syria. Russia supports Syrian government and, just what USA is doing in Syria on usual fake pretexts, kills Syrians on a special military deal with Assad.

As America was enjoying the horrid scenes of genocides of Muslims in Syria, Russia also has joined the party by targeting the Syrians by high speed war planes. As per their plan of fighting wars in alien nations, killing people at will, US-Russian state terror forces keep killing Muslims in Syria and if that strategy works, possibly they do the same in other Arab nations as well on some fictitious pretexts.

As Russia showed some interest in ending the Syrian war at least temporarily, a partial truce brokered by the USA and Russia in Syria came into effect at sunset on September 12, the beginning of the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha. The Syrian government has given its backing, but a number of rebel groups have expressed strong reservations and have yet to say whether they will abide by it.

The cessation agreement included deliveries of humanitarian aid for the worst hit areas, but by Monday most shipments had yet to go in. They include a 20-lorry convoy for rebel-held eastern Aleppo where about 275,000 civilians are trapped without access to food or medical supplies. UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Stephen O’Brien said he was “pained and disappointed” that the convoy had yet to cross into Syria from Turkey. Some aid was delivered to the besieged town of Talbiseh in Homs province on Monday, the Red Cross said.

The deal, which begins with a 48-hour renewable truce, involves three phases: The Syrian government will stop flying combat missions “anywhere where the opposition is present”. Kerry said the government would no longer be able to use the claim that it was bombing Jabhat Fateh al-Sham fighters to mask attacks against “legitimate” rebels operating in the same areas. Both sides will be required to allow unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to all besieged and hard-to-reach areas. A priority will be the second city of Aleppo and its surroundings, where as many as two million people live. Government and rebel forces will pull back from the Castello Road, a major artery running around the north of the city into the rebel-held east. They will also provide safe access through the south-western Ramouseh Gap area.

Providing there are seven consecutive days of significantly reduced violence and humanitarian access, the US and Russia will work together to “develop military strikes” against Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and IS. A Joint Implementation Centre will be established to share information necessary for the delineation of territories controlled by jihadist and rebel groups in areas of active hostilities.

After 10 months of negotiations that the US said were marred by deep “mistrust”, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that they had reached an agreement on a “sustainable” cessation of hostilities that would facilitate negotiations on a political settlement. If successful, it will see President Bashar al-Assad’s forces ending air strikes on territory controlled by mainstream rebels, and both sides allowing humanitarian access to besieged areas. It will also lead to co-ordinated air strikes by the US and Russia against two UN-designated terrorist organisations – so-called Islamic State and the rival jihadist group Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which was known as al-Nusra Front until it broke off formal ties with al-Qaeda in July and changed its name.

The truce has broadly held since taking effect although the Russian-backed Syrian army and rebels have accused each other of many violations. Meanwhile, the UN has warned there is a “problem” with getting aid into Syria. Special envoy Staffan de Mistura placed responsibility on the Syrian government which, he said, had not yet provided the “facilitation letters” that would allow aid convoys to pass through army checkpoints and reach besieged areas.

Earlier, the Syrian military said its seven-day “regime of calm” had expired. Government-backed air strikes were also reported in the city of Homs and in the cities of Hama and Idlib. It said rebel groups, which it referred to as “terrorists”, had failed to commit to any provisions of the truce deal.

US Secretary of State John Kerry criticised the Syrian declaration, saying: “It would be good if they didn’t talk first to the press but if they talked to the people who are actually negotiating this.” He had earlier described the truce as “holding but fragile”. Russian military spokesman Lt Gen Sergei Rudskoi said in a televised statement: “Considering that the conditions of the ceasefire are not being respected by the rebels, we consider it pointless for the Syrian government forces to respect it unilaterally.”

Russia has accused the USA of failing to fulfill its obligations under the truce agreement in Syria. A defence ministry statement said Washington was using a “verbal curtain” to hide its reluctance to rein in the rebel groups it supports. “Only the Syrian army has been observing the ceasefire regime… while the US-led ‘moderate opposition’ has been increasing the number of shellings of residential quarters,” the ministry statement said. “Moreover, it appears that the ‘verbal curtain’ of Washington is aimed at hiding the non-fulfillment of the US obligations.”

Russian defence ministry insisted that, from the very beginning of the truce, Moscow had been fulfilling its obligations, which includes ensuring that the Syrian air force does not bomb areas held by mainstream rebel forces and setting up checkpoints in divided second city of Aleppo. It therefore said it found “confusing” recent comments by US officials that expressed doubts about whether Russia would be able to deliver.

The USA has not reacted to the comments from Moscow, but the state department did acknowledge some incidents “on the part of both the opposition and the Assad regime” were continuing.

Meanwhile, with a cessation of hostilities taking effect across Syria, people across the war-torn country have been sharing photos and videos of themselves enjoying a rare moment of relative calm. Posts from the divided northern city of Aleppo have for months been almost exclusively about bombings, destruction and the suffering of civilians, even before government forces renewed their siege of rebel-held eastern districts where some 250,000 people live. There was a sense of relief and cautious optimism after several very difficult months.

Less than 24 hours after the truce began, Aleppo residents were suggesting that life was slowly returning to normal – or at least as normal as could be expected under the circumstances. Social media backed up reports that the cessation of hostilities was broadly holding. Many users initially provided frequent updates on whether government and rebel forces were abiding by the agreement announced on Saturday by Russia and US, who back opposing sides.

The USA, which brokered the deal with Russia, said it was working to extend the agreement. But it called on Russia to clarify the Syrian statement. “Our arrangement is with Russia, which is responsible for the Syrian regime’s compliance, so we expect Russia to clarify their position,” state department spokesman John Kirby said.

UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said air strikes had hit rebel-held areas in Aleppo and villages to the west. Artillery shelling and air strikes hit Sukkari and Amiriyah, two eastern districts.

The truce was dealt a blow when warplanes from the US-led coalition against so-called Islamic State (IS) accidentally bombed Syrian troops in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour. Officials said the strikes killed more than 60 soldiers. President Bashar al-Assad called them the “latest example of flagrant American aggression against Syrian army positions in the interests of the terrorist organisation Daesh (ISIS)]”. The UK confirmed that British aircraft – believed to be unmanned, remotely-piloted Reaper drones – had been involved in the strike, along with jets from Australia and Denmark.

It is, however, too early to tell whether the truce will hold and the calm last, but after five years of war Syrians are clinging to this moment of hope. Air strikes have hit rebel-held parts of the Syrian city of Aleppo after the military declared the current cessation of violence was over. The Syrian military and rebels have accused each other of repeatedly violating the truce which began seven days ago.

Murdering of Muslims is not a new thing for both the USA and Russia that claim to hold further talks on the Syrian situation in New York today. If USA and Russia are really determined to end war in Syria they will certainly achieve that objective without more bloodbaths.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Landing in Riyadh: Geopolitics work in Putin’s favour

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

When Russian President Vladimir Putin lands in Riyadh this week for the second time in 12 years, his call for endorsement of his proposal to replace the US defense umbrella in the Gulf with a multilateral security architecture is likely to rank high on his agenda.

So is Mr. Putin’s push for Saudi Arabia to finalize the acquisition of Russia’s S-400 anti-missile defense system in the wake of the failure of US weaponry to intercept drones and missiles that last month struck key Saudi oil installations.

“We are ready to help Saudi Arabia protect their people. They need to make clever decisions…by deciding to buy the most advanced S-400 air-defence systems. These kinds of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack,” Mr. Putin said immediately after the attacks.

Mr Putin’s push for a multilateral security approach is helped by changing realities in the Gulf as a result of President Donald J. Trump’s repeated recent demonstrations of his unreliability as an ally.

Doubts about Mr. Trump have been fuelled by his reluctance to respond more forcefully to perceived Iranian provocations, including the downing of a US drone in June and the September attacks on the Saudi facilities as well as his distancing himself from Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu following last month’s elections, and most recently, the president’s leaving the Kurds to their own devices as they confront a Turkish invasion in Syria.

Framed in transactional terms in which Saudi Arabia pays for a service, Mr. Trump’s decision this week to send up to 3,000 troops and additional air defences to the kingdom is likely to do little to enhance confidence in his reliability.

By comparison, Mr. Putin, with the backing of Chinese president Xi Jinping, seems a much more reliable partner even if Riyadh differs with Moscow and Beijing on key issues, including Iran, Syria and Turkey.

“While Russia is a reliable ally, the US is not. Many in the Middle East may not approve of Moscow supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, but they respect Vladimir Putin for sticking by Russia’s beleaguered ally in Syria,” said Middle East scholar and commentator Mark N. Katz.

In a twist of irony, Mr. Trump’s unreliability coupled with an Iran’s strategy of gradual escalation in response to the president’s imposition of harsh economic sanctions in a bid to force the Islamic republic to the negotiating table appear to have moderated what was perceived as a largely disastrous assertive and robust go-it alone Saudi foreign and defense policy posture in recent years.

While everyone would benefit from a dialling down of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Mr. Trump’s overall performance as the guarantor of security in the Gulf could in the longer term pave the way for a more multilateral approach to the region’s security architecture.

In the latest sign of Saudi willingness to step back from the brink, Saudi Arabia is holding back channel talks for the first time in two years with Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The talks began after both sides declared partial ceasefires in the more than four year-long Yemeni war.

The talks potentially open the door to a broader Russian-sponsored deal in the context of some understanding about non-aggression between the kingdom and Iran, in which Saudi Arabia would re-establish diplomatic relations with Syria in exchange for the Islamic republic dropping its support for the Houthis.

Restoring diplomatic relations and reversing the Arab League’s suspension of Syrian membership because of the civil war would constitute a victory for Mr. Al-Assad’s main backers, Russia and Iran. It would grant greater legitimacy to a leader viewed by significant segments of the international community as a pariah.

A Saudi-Iranian swap of Syria for Yemen could also facilitate Saudi financial contributions to the reconstruction of war-ravaged Syria. Saudi Arabia was conspicuously absent at last month’s Rebuild Syria Expo in Damascus.

Mr. Putin is likely to further leverage his enhanced credibility as well as Saudi-Russian cooperation in curtailing oil production to boost prices to persuade Saudi Arabia to follow through on promises to invest in Russia.

Saudi Arabia had agreed to take a stake in Russia’s Novatek Arctic-2 liquefied natural gas complex, acquire Sibur, Russia’s largest petrochemical facility, and invest an additional US$6 billion in future projects.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak predicted that “about 30 agreements and contracts will be signed during President Putin’s visit to Saudi Arabia. We are working on it. These are investment projects, and the sum in question is billions of dollars.”

In anticipation of Mr. Putin’s visit, Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), said it was opening its first overseas office in Riyadh.

RDIF and the kingdom’s counterpart, the Public Investment Fund (PIF), are believed to be looking at some US$2.5 billion in investment in technology, medicine, infrastructure, transport and industrial production.

The Russian fund is also discussing with Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, US$3 billion in investments in oil services and oil and gas conversion projects.

Saudi interest in economic cooperation with Russia goes beyond economics. Ensuring that world powers have an increasing stake in the kingdom’s security is one pillar of a more multilateral regional approach

Said Russian Middle East expert Alexey Khlebnikov: “Clearly, the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities have changed many security calculations throughout the region.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

No peace for Kurds: Rojava still under attack

Silvia Fornaroli

Published

on

The Amazon is still on fire. The “lungs of the Earth” are hardly breathing while the flames are threatening people and nature reserves. As long as we do not see with our own eyes the burnt trees, the endangered species and the indigenous tribes fighting to save their dying forest, we seem incapable to understand the actual consequences.

Thousands of miles away from this environmental catastrophe, a different kind of tragedy is waiting to happen. Rojava-Northern Syria Federation — the self-declared autonomous region that Kurdish people managed to carve out in northeastern Syria during the Civil war — is burning again.

On September 24, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made a controversial speech to the United Nations General Assembly and proposed to create a “safe zone” in the north of Syria, in order to resettle up to 2 million Syrian refugees. He is hoping to establish a peace corridor with a depth of 32 kilometers and a length of 480 kilometers, which would easily turn the area into the world’s largest refugee camp. Despite the seemingly humanitarian purposes, this might represent the umpteenth attempt to destroy the Kurdish dream of an independent democratic enclave.

It is undeniably clear, in fact, how Turkey could take advantage of the situation: Erdoğan’s spokesman Ibrahim Kalin has already claimed that Ankara’s aim is also to clear the borders from “terrorist elements.”

The People’s Protection Units and the Women’s Protection Units (YPG/YPJ), which — along with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — played a key role in the fought against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), are the official army of Rojava but currently designated as terrorist organizations. These armed groups, in fact, are considered as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the far-left militant and political organization founded in 1978 by Abdullah Öcalan and  often involved in armed clashes with Turkish security forces.

Kurdish people are about to be left alone once again and the recent decisions of the White House trigger alarm in the whole Middle East.

On October 7, president Donald Trump announced that the United States  — so far the main financer, trainer and supporter of Kurds — would start pulling troops out of those territories, although it would not constitute a full withdrawal.

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said that “The Department of Defense made clear to Turkey — as did the president — that we do not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria,” and that “The US Armed Forces will not support, or be involved in any such operation.”

Mazlum Kobanê, the commander in chief of the SDF, announced that they will protect Syrian’s borders and fight back against Ankara’s army. Since the majority of Kurdish cities are located in this area, it is not difficult to understand how potentially devasting this ongoing operation could be.

Turkish assault is going to begin from the city of Gire Spi/Tell Abyad, once controlled by the so-called Caliphate and captured in 2015 by the YPG during the Tell Abyad offensive. The cities of Qamishli, Derek/Al Malikiya, Tell Tamer and Kobanê/Ayn al Arab are next to become target of air strikes and artillery fire as well.

It is no coincidence that shortly after the siege of Kobanê, Kurdish forces directed their efforts towards Tell Abyad, being such a strategic site for ISIL militias. The city, in fact, was better known in the West as the “Jihadi Highway”, a de-facto corridor for foreign fighters. In the chaos caused by the fighting, jihadists would surely try to regain strength and Turkish move is serving the cause.

At the Al-Hol camp — a huge detention female camp near Al-Hasakah — numerous riots have occurred in the past few weeks, and the managers of the structure believe that the women held in the prison — former jihadi brides — might be the vehicle for renewed forms of radicalization.

In view of the fact that US officials confirmed that they will not intervene nor will they seize control of those prisons, Kurdish forces called Washington’s move “a stab in the back”. Meanwhile in Raqqa, ISIL militants are still carrying out suicide bombing attacks against SDF positions.

Shervan Derwish, official spokesman of the Mambij Military Council, has expressed his concern with a very touching message on Twitter.

The YPG and YPJhave fought in many historical battles and their solitary resistance during the last Turkish Afrin offensive in January 2018 became a symbol of their resilience.

On the other hand, Turkey’s army will be backed by their well-known rebel allies:  “The Turkish military, together with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), will cross the Turkish-Syrian border shortly, “wrote Fahrettin Altun — Turkey’s communications director — in a Washington Post column. Numerous military groups are active in the region and, although their nature is still debated, there are evidence of many connections with jihadi-inspired organizations.

Working in cooperation with the SDF, Rojava’s cantons are ready to resist and defend their independence, but Trump’s decision sounds like a betrayal.

If forests are burning, so will be democracy in Syria. The Rojava project is in imminent danger, and this time there will be no mountains for the Kurds to seek refuge in. Here in the West we are blessed not to directly witness the destruction of both tragedies, but it is still up to us whether to look those flames in the eye or remember them as the unique environments they actually were.

In loving memory of Mehmet Aksoy, who dedicated his life to the Kurdish cause.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Revisiting Saudi-Iranian Rivalry: From A Cold War Perspective

Zaeem Hassan Mehmood

Published

on

Middle East considered the “bridge between the East and West” has long grabbed attention of great power policy makers due to its geostrategic and geopolitical significance. After the discovery of oil in the early part of 20th Century, Iran and Saudi Arabia had gained a prominent position at the global international arena. The defining moment in their relation was the year 1968, when the British government announced its withdrawal from the “Persian Gulf,” threatening thereby the balance brought to an equilibrium by more than 150 years of English security guarantees to the sheikdoms. The international community largely sees the conflict in terms of sectarian and on religious grounds which is an inadequate approach and one that rules out other detrimental factor. There have been little analysis and studies undertaken on the conflict from a “Cold war” perspective, which can significantly help other states in maintaining a viable balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The conflict dubbed as the “New Middle East Cold War” or “Saudi-Iranian Cold War” is not the first event termed as “Cold war” in the Middle Eastern history. Malcolm Kerr writing in his acclaimed book Arab Cold War 1958-67 termed the growing rivalry and quest for leadership in the Middle East at the aftermath of British and French withdrawal between Republican Egypt and conservative Arab monarchies as a regional equivalent of Cold war. The present relations of Saudi Arabia and Iran are short of war, a condition where although the contenders do not engage in open battlefields face to face, it is a ‘battle’ nevertheless fought on different fronts including the media. Daniel Serwer of John Hopkins writes that Saudi-Iran conflict is regional equivalent of20th century US-Soviet Cold war.

Characteristics of Cold War

The term ‘cold war’ had been in use before 1945 to describe period of extreme tensions between states that were just short of war. In the year 1893, German socialist Eduard Bernstein described the arms race between Germany and its neighbors as a kind of ‘cold war’ where “there is no shooting but bleeding.” The term rapidly came back into use when United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) faced each other eyeball to eyeball. British writer George Orwell remarked on the significance of the moment foreseeing “a peace that is no peace” where the two mighty powers were to be “unconquerable and in a permanent state of cold war.”Anders Stephanson has defined the essence of a Cold War as consisting of characteristics whereby both sides deny each other the legitimacy as a regime, attempting to attack each other by all means short of war. This is in the view of the author, followed by an intense military buildup with a prolonged arms race.

Cold War since then has exclusively referred to as the ‘sustained state of political and military tensions’ between the 20th century superpowers. Although the rivalry had ceased with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the term and subject-matter has remained ever relevant to an extent that the study of grand strategy and security is considered incomplete without the former’s inclusion. Saudi Arabia and Iran, in order to contain conflict and to ensure; that it ends up being short and as shallow as possible, need to revitalize the lessons of the ‘original Cold War.’ United States and Soviet Union despite their sustained rivalry developed a variety of mechanism for escalation and risk management. This was undertaken without foregoing their core national interests and ideologies. The leadership understood that there was ‘wisdom in engaging’ rather than isolating the other. The approach is more relevant today in the era of globalization than it was in those years. “Geo-economics must replace geopolitics” as the focal Saudi-Iranian approach in order to reach a ‘non-zero sum situation.’

Religious and political ideology plays an important role in the foreign policy between Riyadh and Tehran. The two offer competing ideologies and political model with a strong desire for strategic and geopolitical supremacy. The standoff, experts believe is also the result of the desire and aspirations of the two, for political leadership in the Islamic world. The conflict is not the result of alleged schism between Shia and Sunni school of Islam, but is rather a byproduct of centuries’ political and religious contestation that existed between empires and is now manifested into politics of these modern states.

Diplomacy is integral to the Middle East cold war. Since establishing relations in 1929, the two have had their ups and downs. In the years of the Shah, relations began to take the turn for worse when Shah’s ‘hegemonic desires’ and Saudi Arabia’s desire not to accept Iran predominant role in the Gulf and beyond. Nevertheless, relations remained intact at least diplomatically despite severity of incidents such as Gunboat coercion and the oil wars.

Conclusion

Wars have recognizable beginnings and they comprise of direct fighting between the adversaries with armistices and peace treaties as their conclusive ends. However, a Cold war has none of these characteristics, in words of Walter Lippman, “it brings neither peace nor honour to those who wage it.” The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia has “spillover effects” and repercussions beyond the region. States such as those in the West, and Pakistan in particular close in proximity to the two have had a tough time “balancing” their relations. A careful, delicate and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted on part of statesmen, taking into account the opportunities and challenges arising from a “Cold War” need to be taken into account. Media on both sides has an important role to play in patching up the hostilities by upholding ethical standards and avoiding propagandist contest to avoid further aggravation of the conflict. 

Continue Reading

Latest

Human Rights44 mins ago

Turkey’s Syria offensive could spark another catastrophe

Airstrikes and a ground offensive by Turkey in northern Syria against Kurdish forces have left civilians dead and forced tens...

Newsdesk3 hours ago

ADB Unveils New 5-Year Strategy for Nepal to Promote Stronger, More Inclusive Economy

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has released a new 5-year Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for Nepal that lays out ADB’s...

Middle East5 hours ago

Landing in Riyadh: Geopolitics work in Putin’s favour

When Russian President Vladimir Putin lands in Riyadh this week for the second time in 12 years, his call for...

Reports7 hours ago

MENA Faces Another Year of Subdued Growth, with Bolder Reforms Needed to Boost Private Sector

Economic growth in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is projected to slow to 0.6% this year compared...

Style9 hours ago

The Breitling Avenger Swiss Air Force Team Limited Edition

Breitling is celebrating the 55th anniversary of the Patrouille Suisse Swiss Air Force Team, admired around the world for its...

Energy11 hours ago

A Century of Russia’s Weaponization of Energy

In 1985 a joint meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev conveyed this enduring sentiment...

Newsdesk13 hours ago

Bangladesh Economy Continues Robust Growth with Rising Exports and Remittances

The Bangladesh economy sustains strong growth in FY19 led by rising exports and record remittances, says a new World Bank...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy