Peace In Syria?

The Syrian Civil war is a convoluted and elaborate maze of political, financial, religious and egotistic agendas. Although obvious, we must acknowledge that the war continues because of this complexity; because of the intervention of regional and world powers which have directly intensified fighting. In this situation, the facts prevail: millions of people are displaced, 500,000 dead, and human rights are being violated.

Although the first shots of the civil war were fired at the Arab Spring of 2011, the origins of Assad’s oppressive dictatorial regime, widespread corruption, high unemployment rates and a lack of political freedom stem from the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and establishing Syria as a pluralist state. Although the civil war is not about religion, the undemocratic division between the Alawite minority and Sunni Muslim majority, which have been shifted further apart in the conflict, is perhaps a major reason why the civil war in Syria continues.

In the last five years, the war has fractured far beyond a battle between those for and against Assad. We can roughly demarcate control of Syria into Assad’s government, Syrian rebel forces, IS, and Kurdish forces. To complicate matters, the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the European Union are active players, fiercely diverse in their political allies and motives for support.

Whilst leaders determine political movements at a distance, Syrian civilians caught in the middle endure horrific hardships. More than half the population have been forced to flee their homes. Many choose to stay, fearing the neglected condition of refugee camps. The capital of Damascus and the second city of Aleppo became some of the fiercest battlegrounds in the war, with regime bombardment making normal life impossible.

Residents of the capital of Damascus have been without a stable water supply for weeks, although this week’s events show Syrian military forces have regained the city’s main water source from rebels.

In November 2016, the Assad regime’s renewed assault on rebel forces rapidly retook control of the opposition-held east Aleppo, effectively ending the city’s brutal four-year deadlock between the government and opposition which was seen as a microcosm of the wider conflict in Syria. Although the city is now more stable due to ceasefire and evacuation agreements, it has become so at the expense of intense bombing and the risk of tens of thousands of civilian lives. Its progress towards peace has highlighted the weaknesses on all sides, and the failure of the international community to protect civilians and wager peace agreements.

After shocking and seemingly relentless news of bombings and casualties, these latest shifts in Assad’s favour have elicited a welcome ceasefire and created a new opportunity for peace talks, and indeed the latest attempt to negotiate took place in the Kazakh capital on the 6th of February and bringing together representatives from Assad’s government, Russia, Iran and Turkey.

The statement stresses that “there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, and it is only achievable through a political process.” This ‘process’ looks like one that accepts Assad will stay.

It seems Russia is increasingly concerned about the financial burden of their involvement. They are honing attention onto ISIS. Turkey is showing signs of weakness under more than 2.8 million Syrian refugees and its increasing status as a target for ISIS attacks.

Despite including major players, ISIS, other opposition groups and Kurdish force representatives will not be present at the talks.

Moscow invited American officials to join the meeting on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, and their acceptance is still unclear. It is possible this meeting will see the antagonism between the US and Russia lessen; Trump has announced focus on fighting IS (as opposed to Obama’s denouncement of Assad) and appears willing to work more closely with Putin to do so.

In a recent interview with ABC news, Trump remarked “I’ll absolutely do safe zones in Syria for the people”; with plans for the Pentagon and State Department to focus on developing safe zones in Syria in the next 90 days, “in which Syrian nationals displaced from their homeland can await firm settlement.” Meanwhile, Trump’s intolerant ban of visitors to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries is troubling and a reminder of the national, rather than international motives for action.

Without full representation from powers at play, which seems almost impossible, it is likely these talks can only posit an extension of the ceasefire, when a resolution of the wider problems underlying the conflict is surely the only way to peace. Meanwhile, negotiations concerning only a few players mean there is no clear goal, no clear ideas for the treatment of refugees and clearly responsibility for war crimes will be neglected.

Latest posts by Millie Newis (see all)

Related