| Information |  | |
Derechos | Equipo Nizkor
| ||
| Information | | |
Derechos | Equipo Nizkor
| ||
09Sep16
Russia and the United States Reach New Agreement on Syria Conflict
Russia and the United States agreed early Saturday on a new plan to reduce violence in the Syrian conflict that, if successful, could lead for the first time to joint military targeting by the two powers against Islamic jihadists in Syria.
The agreement was reached after 10 months of failed attempts to halt the fighting and of suspended efforts to reach a political settlement to an increasingly complex conflict that began more than five years ago.
The conflict has left nearly half a million people dead, created the largest refugee crisis since World War II and turned Syria into a prime incubator of recruiting for the Islamic State and the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.
Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, announced the agreement in Geneva after weeks of negotiations that were marred, in President Obama's words, by deep "mistrust" between the Russians and Americans, who back opposite sides in Syria, but share an antipathy to the Islamic jihadists flourishing there.
It came at a time when relations between the United States and Russia, which have worsened throughout much of the Obama administration, have been especially jolted by accusations of Russian hacking and subterfuge in American politics. The tensions have been further exacerbated by the effusive praise for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia by the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.
The new arrangement on Syria, set to begin Monday, was greeted with skepticism by Syrians on all sides and carries many risks of failure, which the Pentagon and Mr. Kerry acknowledged. "No one is basing this on trust," he said. "We are basing it on oversight and compliance."
The plan starts with a seven-day continuous "genuine reduction of violence," in Mr. Kerry's words, and broad, unrestricted humanitarian access to the ravaged northern city of Aleppo and other besieged areas.
If that works, the United States and Russia are to establish a Joint Implementation Center, where they will share targeting data, and begin to coordinate bombing of militants of the Nusra Front and the Islamic State.
The key element is that Russia must then restrain the forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from conducting any air operations over areas held by Nusra and other opposition forces. The United States hopes this will end the indiscriminate dropping of barrel bombs — including chlorine gas attacks — that have punctuated the conflict.
In return, the United States is to persuade the opposition groups it has been supporting to separate themselves from the Nusra forces. Mr. Assad has attacked many of them on the pretense of attacking Nusra fighters.
American officials expressed strong reservations about whether this new arrangement would work. Especially skeptical was the Pentagon, long suspicious of Russian intentions in Syria, since the Kremlin first deployed military forces there to help Mr. Assad a year ago.
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter was among Obama administration officials who raised questions over whether either Russia or the Assad government would comply with the terms.
Mr. Kerry's announcement of the deal, Mr. Lavrov at his side, was permeated with caveats.
"We believe the plan, if implemented, if followed, has the ability to provide a turning point, a change," he said. But he sounded far more cautious here than he did in Munich in February when he announced an earlier "cessation of hostilities" that failed.
The accord was reached after sharp divisions inside the Obama administration over the wisdom of sharing targeting information with Russia, and accusations that the Russians have used the negotiating period to help Mr. Assad regain control in Aleppo and strike at American-backed opposition groups.
For Mr. Obama, who asked Mr. Kerry to keep working on the negotiation after the president failed to reach an accord with Mr. Putin during the Group of 20 summit meeting in China last weekend, the new accord poses considerable risks.
For example, if the bombing of Nusra sites kills civilians — almost inevitable given the proximity of militant extremist groups and civilians — there are bound to be accusations about who is responsible. Pentagon officials are also concerned that Russia will use the targeting data to learn more about how American forces identify and attack targets, at a time when forces from the two countries are often near one another around Europe.
Mr. Lavrov took a few shots at the United States even while celebrating the arrangement, denouncing "arrogant sanctions" levied against Russia for its annexation of Crimea two years ago.
Late on Friday, he suggested the United States could not decide about the deal, sending pizza and vodka to reporters to ease the wait, and coming by to joke about how long it took Mr. Obama and his team to make decisions.
But for Mr. Kerry, reaching this deal has become a personal mission, one that at times put him in conflict with the White House. He has pressed for a stronger military commitment in Syria and support for some opposition groups, along with a series of more aggressive covert actions, according to administration officials. Mr. Obama has been reluctant, as have others in the White House who fear that, even if they could engineer a transition in Syria, it could create a power vacuum that Iran, Russia and militant terrorist groups could exploit.
The American skepticism is partly rooted in the failed agreement for a cessation of hostilities reached with the Russians in February. That arrangement collapsed weeks later when Russia moved heavy artillery into the Aleppo area to help Mr. Assad's forces.
Among the Syrians, the latest plan was greeted with wariness, particularly from armed opposition groups and their supporters, who, broadly speaking, have come to believe that the United States has lost interest in ousting Mr. Assad, and is willing to see them wiped out.
It is a measure of how little trust the Syrians have in the international community — especially after the short-lived cease-fire in February — that initial reactions were lukewarm, even though the deal holds out the possibility of at least a temporary calming of the violence.
Armed opposition groups read the deal as ordering them to remove better-armed Nusra fighters from their areas, something they lack the military power to do alone, or else face attack by the United States — a country that has provided some of the rebel groups with training and weapons for years.
Some government opponents noted that the deal came hours after Syrian military forces — with Russian air support — re-established their siege of the rebel-held sections of Aleppo.
While Mr. Kerry began his announcement by noting that Mr. Assad's airstrikes were, as he put it, "the main driver of civilian casualties and migration flows," the deal — as partly described — contains many loopholes that could allow them to continue.
And no measures were described that would hold any of the parties to account if they violated the terms of a deal that is being struck at a time when the United States has little leverage over Russia in Syria.
The deal allows Syrian government warplanes to continue to fly missions in some areas that are to be defined later.
And Russia and the United States will target areas where they both agree Nusra or Islamic State fighters are present. What that really means hinges on how Russia and the United States define legitimate opposition groups that cannot be targeted under the deal, and how they define areas where Nusra is present.
The deal also failed to mention anything about the presence of foreign Shiite militias — such as Hezbollah, which like Al Qaeda and Islamic State is considered a terrorist group by the United States — fighting on the Syrian government's side.
It also said nothing about the tens of thousands of detainees in Syrian government prisons, whose release had long been touted as a possible measure under a deal. And while it spoke of allowing aid deliveries into besieged areas, it said nothing of lifting the sieges and restoring freedom of movement of goods and people.
[Source: By David E. Sanger and Anne Barnard, International New York Times, Geneva, 09Sep16]
Donate
Radio Nizkor
 | This document has been published on 26Sep16 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. |