Problematic at best

Even before revealing details of how the safe zones in Syria will work, US President Donald Trump’s vague proposal, made soon after his inauguration, is creating confusion, questions and even doubts on most sides.

Reportedly, the US president had discussed his idea with Saudi, UAE, Jordanian and Turkish leaders separately over the telephone, direct messages and face-to-face meetings.

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi support Trump’s proposal. King Abdullah, who met the US president in Washington a week ago, was briefed on the notion, but Amman is yet to react.

Russia said it needed more information but has not rejected the idea outright.

More importantly, perhaps, Syrian President Bashar Assad rejected the proposal flatly, describing it as “unrealistic” and only possible “when you have stability and security, where you don’t have terrorists, where you don’t have flow and support of those terrorists by the neighbouring countries or by Western countries”.

But while the world waits for more details from Washington, political and military developments in Syria are fast moving, putting Trump’s project on hold for now, but not for long.

According to independent figures, there are 6.6 million internally displaced Syrians and over 4.5 million refugees in five regional countries.

The number of the internally displaced could change in light of ongoing military confrontations in Ghouta, Darra, Deir Ezzor, Idlib, Al Bab and later on in Raqqa.

As the Astana process picks up pace, leading to a resumption of Geneva talks next week, maintaining the ceasefire agreement and providing humanitarian help to stranded civilians will emerge as top issues.

The idea of safe zones could find its way to the negotiating table later on. For Turkey, which has been calling for the creation of safe zones along its borders with Syria for years, the subject conceals political as well as humanitarian motives.

Politically, Ankara wants to circumvent attempts by Syrian Kurds to carve out an autonomous enclave along most of northern Syria.

For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, such moves represent an existential threat to Turkey.

The Obama administration never warmed up to Erdogan’s calls, prompting Ankara to act unilaterally: dispatching Syrian rebels, backed by Turkish tanks, war planes and artillery into northern Syria in the summer of 2016 under operation “Euphrates Shield”.

Since then, the Turkish military and its Syrian allies have captured a number of key Syrian towns, pushing the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces further to the east.

After bitter fighting this week, Turkish troops advanced to capture most of Daesh-held Al Bab, the gateway to Raqqa.

This prompted Erdogan to announce that a planned Turkish-imposed safe zone would cover an area of at least 4,000 to 5,000 square kilometres and would require a no-fly zone.

The legitimacy and viability of this zone remains in question.

It could still be targeted by SDF forces, the regular Syrian army and its Iranian allies.

Despite the recent Turkish-Russian entente on Syria, Ankara remains suspicious that planned peace negotiations could award Syria’s Kurds a form of autonomy through a wider agreement between Washington and Moscow.

Unlike Turkey, Jordan cannot afford, nor does it want, to carry out a military incursion into southern Syria, a region that is vital to its national security.

Instead, it is building a coalition of moderate rebel groups and local tribal fighters to fend off possible advance by Daesh.

It is also carrying out preemptive aerial strikes against Daesh positions in southern Syria. 

Jordan’s key objective today is to secure its northern borders against possible breach by Daesh and other terrorist groups.

Creating safe zones in southern Syria would prevent a future refugee influx into Jordan and may encourage some of the 600,000 Syrian refugees in the Kingdom to return to their country.

Jordan has prevented refugees in two makeshift camps on the Syrian side of the border from entering the Kingdom. 

It believes that both camps have been infiltrated by Daesh members.

Last October, the militant organisation carried out a suicide attack against Jordanian security personnel in a buffer area close to the camp, killing and injuring dozens.

The idea of creating safe zone is fraught with problems.

For starters, there are legal issues at hand. Who will provide the mandate to set up such zones and, more importantly, how will they be managed and who will bear the cost?

Several American security experts have warned Trump that without boots on the ground and aerial protection, these safe zones could either be targeted by the regime or become safe havens for extremists.

With fighters from many groups and militias mingling with civilians, Idlib and Raqqa being classic cases, it will be difficult to designate civilian-only safe zones without the physical presence of troops on the ground.

This underlines the complexity of the Syrian situation.

Trump’s proposal may seem noble and simple enough, but its application and implications raise more questions than provide answers.

The writer is a journalist and commentator based in Amman.