The
three players, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey, will try and bring
about a scenario, so Syria is divided into different state-lets,
explains Middle East expert Ali Rizk. Former UK ambassador to Syria
Peter Ford joins the discussion.
The
Russian-US brokered ceasefire deal in southern Syria made it possible
for locals to enjoy relative peace for the first time in six years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump negotiated the ceasefire at the G20 in Hamburg last week.
However, the peace will be partial, as there are extremist organizations who are outside of the agreement.
Ali Rizk, Middle East expert
RT: Why do you think this ceasefire would work, where others have failed?
Ali Rizk: I
think the Trump administration has put quite a lot of political capital
into this particular initiative by Trump after the first meeting with
the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. So it kind of comes within a
different atmosphere, a very significant new atmosphere, as I said just
on the heels of the very important Russian-American summit between the
leaders of both countries. That is in my mind one reason.
The
other reason: if you read the statement released by the US Secretary of
the State Rex Tillerson just on the eve of the US-Russian summit in
Hamburg, Tillerson referred to the importance of achieving stability.
There appears to be American recognition now, or American readiness, if
you would like, to back down from that precondition, which America used
to have of President Bashar Assad stepping down.
So I think this new more pragmatic – the Russian President put it best when he said: “This more pragmatic American approach, which no longer sets conditions like the removal of the Syrian President.”This
factor does indeed make the chances for this latest ceasefire to be
more successful. It increases the likelihood of success because we do
indeed appear to have a new American recognition of reality, a more
pragmatic, as I said, American approach.
Read more
RT: How far away are we from seeing this resolved?
AR: I
don’t think you still have a consensus or complete agreement on what
the final settlement should be. Do we want to go back to the United
Syria, whereby the Syrian president controls all of Syrian territory?
For example, in that particular case if the Syrian President Bashar
Assad would seize control of all of Syria that is a red line for Israel.
Israel obviously would do its utmost to prevent such a scenario from
being fulfilled. That is also a red line for Turkey.
At
the same time, you have Iran, which believes President Assad should
have control of all of Syria, as he is the legitimate Syrian president.
Yes, you don’t have a convergence of views as to the final settlement.
But at the very least, this particular step is a positive way forward.
But I personally would focus on the fact that three players, let me say -
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey – these particular three players will do
whatever they can in order to spoil any solution, which leaves Syrian
President Assad in control of the whole country.
These
three players I mentioned would try and bring about a scenario whereby
Syria is divided into different state-lets. That is what these three
players will be working on. Now, let’s wait and see the if Trump
administration will it be influenced by these positions from these
countries, especially from Israel or Saudi Arabia, or will it, in the
end, agree to the Syrian president controlling all of Syria. That still
hasn’t become clear enough.
‘Freeing up Syrian forces’
Peter Ford, Former UK ambassador to Syria and Bahrain
RT: We’ve seen ceasefires arranged and fail in the past. Why should we be optimistic about this one?
Peter Ford: Yes,
I think we should be fairly optimistic. Previous ceasefires failed
because there were powerful spoilers. In the Aleppo case, it was
Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate, which was very strong and was able to
disrupt the ceasefires there. In the south, the military situation is
different – most of the fighting forces on the rebel side are smaller
groups affiliated with the so-called Free Syrian Army and the Al-Qaeda
affiliated groups are very small in numbers.
However,
there are pockets of ISIS there. They are not involved in the ceasefire
- they will continue to be targeted. Both sides: the Syrian government
with Russia behind it, and the rebel side in the southwest with America
behind them, want this to work. I’m hopeful that it will hold at least
for several months.
RT: Why do you think these three zones were chosen for the ceasefire?
PF: The
conditions were ripe; there has been an effective standstill in the
area since March when the area was first mentioned as a zone for
deconfliction or de-escalation in the Astana talks. There is essentially
a military standstill.
The
Syrian government could retake the towns at the area, particularly
Daraa, but they don’t want to raze Daraa to the ground in the way that
the Iraqi government forces, with America behind them, have just razed
much of Mosul, and it would be altogether too costly.
At
the same time, the rebel forces in the area don’t represent a strategic
threat to the Syrian government. The Syrian government has bigger fish
to fry in other parts of Syria. This is the real significance of this
agreement – it will free up battalions, Syrian government forces, to go
fight against ISIS in Deir ez-Zor in the northeast – a much more
important town - and other areas in the central spine of the country in
Homs province.
No comments:
Post a Comment