Talking better than fighting

The ceasefire that took effect in Syria on Saturday kept many analysts and observers quite sceptical as to its ability to hold.

Right from the beginning, and as expected, there have been frequent complaints of violations from both sides. But that does not mean that the latest Russo-American agreement on how to deal with the Syrian crisis is doomed: the agreement is not entirely dependent on the ceasefire.

For ceasefires to hold, they need agreement from all fighting factions.

This one excluded two major factions: Daesh and Al Nusra Front. That simply means that some fighting is likely to take place during the ceasefire period, either to respond to actions initiated by the excluded factions, which have no reason to abide by a ceasefire that did not involve them anyway, or to continue operations against the terrorists, in this case Daesh and Al Nusra.

The ceasefire is not meant to provide the terror organisations with any cover or breathing space.

So how could the parts of such a complex puzzle form a comprehensible political whole? 

It could be this way.

The situation in Syria has been deteriorating rapidly and got so much out of control that concerned powers, particularly the US and Russia, felt compelled to arrest the drift into a major regional war.

Following the instant collapse of the last round of Geneva talks, earlier this month, and out of concern that Russia was determined to settle the Syrian battle in its and the Assad regime’s favour, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey threatened not to keep quiet.

They threatened to send land forces into Syria to buttress the position of the struggling opposition against the Russian/Syrian army offensive.

Clearly that must have been the turning point that brought Washington’s and Moscow’s positions closer to each other and act to avert what could have been a very serious military escalation.

The “withholding of offensive actions”, as the ceasefire is called, is the first step taken to abort escalation, and apparently it did.

It is also meant to enable humanitarian aid to areas where human tragedies resulting from blockades and sieges have reached disastrous proportions, and that seems to also be in process.

It is in the interest of both world powers that the ceasefire hold, to prepare for the next steps towards a political settlement of the Syrian predicament.

The significance of those two practical strides is that they may create a better climate for the next round of talks between the Syrian government and the opposition, scheduled early next month.

The failure of the last round was attributed to lack of good faith on the part of both sides.

At the time, the Syrian forces, with massive Russian aerial support, were making substantial advances on the ground on several fronts, and as such, they may have hoped to buttress their negotiating position, at a later stage, by additional battle gains.

The opposition, on the other hand, was coerced to attend the early February Geneva talks fully aware of its weak position.

As that became clearer upon its arrival, it decided to cut its certain losses and leave.

Fighting has been severe for most of February, but without clear signs that the forces of the regime were really close to victory.

Because Russian and regime air raids on civilian dwellings and locations were causing massive humanitarian losses and tragedies, it was not possible to maintain the fight at its existing levels, let alone escalate to enhance battle position.

And as the fighting factions on the opposite side managed to maintain tough resistance and in many cases hold their ground, the idea that only a political settlement of the conflict was possible vigorously resurfaced.

There is no question that the two major powers, the US and Russia, are serious about ending the war by political agreement.

Both must have exerted heavy pressure on their regional allies to moderate their positions and to agree to engage in political talks.

Good intentions alone, however, are far from adequate to guarantee success.

Within the Syrian framework, the gap between the demands by the regime and the least the opposition is willing to accept remains wide.

But the situation gets far more complex within a regional context, as some Arab states, in addition to Turkey — which has a different agenda altogether — are still adamant that any political settlement for Syria should exclude President Bashar Assad.

If that means the road to any possible settlement is long and rough, it does not mean that it should be prematurely presumed as totally impassable.

UN secretary general’s Syrian envoy Staffan de Mistura is right not to be discouraged by previous failures, and to insist on holding a new round of talks.

The talks may be tough and extremely difficult, the gap between parties may be vast and the demands may be very difficult to reconcile, but it will be a great relief for the despairing Syrian people if while the talks are in process, fighting are halted and relief can reach those who need it.

The choice is clearly between continued war and destruction, without any chance of gain for anyone, or protracted negotiations even if with a little hope.

The good news is that most of the influential parties agree that there must be a ceasefire followed by talks. That should be tried.