Major powers agree on plan for ‘cessation of hostilities’ in Syria

Major powers agreed on Friday to a cessation of hostilities in Syria set to begin in a week and to provide rapid humanitarian access to besieged Syrian towns, but failed to secure a complete ceasefire or an end to Russian bombing.

Following a marathon meeting in Munich aimed at resurrecting peace talks that collapsed last week, the powers, including the United States, Russia and more than a dozen other nations, reaffirmed their commitment to a political transition when conditions on the ground improved.

At a news conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged the Munich meeting produced commitments on paper only.

"What we need to see in the next few days are actions on the ground, in the field," he said, adding that "without a political transition, it is not possible to achieve peace."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the news conference that Russia would not stop air attacks in Syria, saying the cessation of hostilities did not apply to Islamic State and al Nusrah, which is affiliated with al Qaeda. Islamic State militants control large parts of Syria and Iraq

"Our airspace forces will continue working against these organisations," he said.

The United States and European allies say few Russian strikes have targeted those groups, with the vast majority hitting Western-backed opposition groups seeking to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad government.

Mr. Lavrov said peace talks should resume in Geneva as soon as possible and that all Syrian opposition groups should participate. He added that halting hostilities would be a difficult task.

But British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said ending fighting could only succeed if Russia stopped air strikes supporting Syrian government forces' advance against the opposition.

Diplomats cautioned that Russia had until now not demonstrated any interest in seeing Assad replaced and was pushing for a military victory.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday raised the spectre of an interminable conflict or even a world war if powers failed to negotiate an end to five years of fighting in Syria, which has killed 250,000 people, caused a refugee crisis and empowered Islamic State militants.

Opposition group cautious

Syria's main opposition group welcomed the plan by the world powers on Friday.

It cautioned, however, that the agreement must prove to be effective before it joins political talks with government representatives in Geneva.

Russia's intervention on the battlefield on behalf of Assad since last October has swung the momentum in the fight between the government and opposition forces. The latest advance over the past two weeks has seen government forces and allies rout rebels and come close to encircling Aleppo, a divided city half held by rebels for years.

The first peace talks in two years between belligerents in Syria fell apart last week before they began in the face of the advance by Assad's forces.

A senior French diplomat said: "The Russians said they will continue bombing the terrorists. They are taking a political risk because they are accepting a negotiation in which they are committing to a cessation of hostilities. If in a week there is no change because of their bombing, then they will bear the responsibility."

Washington is leading its own air campaign against Islamic State militants in eastern Syria and northern Iraq, but has resisted calls to intervene in the main battlefields of Syria's civil war in the west of the country, where the government is mostly fighting against other insurgent groups.

The communiqué of the plan reached in Munich said the powers had established a ceasefire task force, under the auspices of the United Nations, co-chaired by Russia and the United States, and including members having government and opposition groups.

The communiqué added that sustained humanitarian aid would begin this week to various besieged areas of Syria.

"Humanitarian access to these most urgent areas will be a first step toward full, sustained, and unimpeded access throughout the country," the joint communiqué added.

The Assad government for years has repeatedly promised humanitarian access but has rarely lived up to its promises. Western-backed rebels have also been accused of that.

Read More

Diplomats aim for temporary Syria truce in a week

Diplomats trying to secure a ceasefire for the civil war in Syria fell short early on Friday in organising an immediate truce but agreed to try to work out details and implement a temporary “cessation of hostilities” in the coming week.

Although foreign ministers from the International Syria Support Group managed to seal an agreement to “accelerate and expand” deliveries of humanitarian aid to besieged Syrian communities beginning this week, their failure to agree on a ceasefire leaves the most critical step to resuming peace talks unresolved. It was not clear from their comments afterward if deep differences regarding the truce and which groups would be eligible for it could be overcome.

Speaking for the group, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the results as a significant accomplishment but noted that a cessation-of-hostilities agreement, if it can be achieved, would only be a “pause” in fighting and that more work would need to be done to turn it into a fully-fledged ceasefire.

“The real test is whether or not all the parties honour those commitments and implement them,” he told reporters after the nearly six-hour meeting at a Munich hotel, which ran the early hours of Friday.

While humanitarian access is critical to relieving the suffering of millions of Syrians in the short term, a durable and lasting ceasefire will be required if stalled negotiations between Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government and the opposition are to resume on or before the U.N.-set target date of Feb. 25. The talks broke down last month before they really started, due largely to gains by Assad’s military with the heavy backing of Russian airstrikes.

Mr. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who had been pressing for a ceasefire to begin March 1, said the U.S. and Russia would co-chair both the working group on humanitarian aid as well as a task force that will try to deal with the “modalities” of the temporary truce and include members of the military along with representatives from countries that are supporting various armed groups in Syria.

Russia had proposed the March 1 ceasefire, but the U.S. and others saw that as a ploy to give Moscow and the Syrian army three more weeks to try to crush Western- and Arab-backed rebels. The U.S. countered with demands for an immediate stop to the fighting. Both countries appeared to have made concessions on that front.

Despite the concession on potential timing of the truce and the agreement to set up the task force, the U.S., Russia and others remain far apart on which groups should be eligible for it. The new task force will take up a job that was supposed to have been settled months ago. At the moment, only two groups the Islamic State group and the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front are ineligible for the truce because they are identified as terrorist organizations by the United Nations.

Russia, Syria and Iran argue that other groups, notably some supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states, should not be eligible for the ceasefire, and there was no sign Friday that those differences had been resolved.

Mr. Lavrov said the Russian air campaign in support of Assad’s military would continue against terrorist groups and denied persistent reports that the Russian strikes have hit civilian areas, notably around rebel-held Aleppo, where heavy fighting has been raging for the past week.

Among the issues the task force is charged with sorting out are delineating territories held by the Islamic State, al-Nusra and other militant groups, ensuring the compliance of eligible parties and referring violations of the truce for appropriate action, including exclusion from the arrangement.

Asked Friday to comment on the Munich talks, Salem Meslet, the spokesman for the Syrian opposition coalition known as the High Negotiations Commitee, said, “We must see action on the ground in Syria.”

Five years of conflict have killed more than a quarter-million people, created Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since World War II and allowed the Islamic State to carve out its own territory across parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq.

Overall, the United Nations says almost half a million people are besieged in Syria. Since the beginning of 2015, Syria’s government had approved just 13 inter-agency aid convoys, out of 113 requested, the U.N. reported last month.

As Mr. Kerry met with the Syria group in Munich, U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter was in Brussels to rally fresh support for the fight against the Islamic State group in largely the same territory.

Mr. Carter said defence ministers from more than two dozen countries gave a “broad endorsement” of a refined U.S. plan for defeating the Islamic State. After a meeting at NATO headquarters, Mr. Carter told reporters that nearly all participants either promised new military commitments or said their governments would consider new contributions. He predicted “tangible gains” in Iraq and Syria by March.

“We will all look back after victory and remember who participated in the fight,” he said, appealing to coalition partners to expand and deepen their military contributions.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance agreed Thursday to deploy NATO airborne command and control aircraft in order to free up similar U.S. aircraft for the air campaign in Syria and Iraq.

Read More

Russia proposes March 1 ceasefire in Syria; U.S. wants it now

Russia has proposed a March 1 ceasefire in Syria, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, but Washington believes Moscow is giving itself and the Syrian government three weeks to try to crush moderate rebel groups.

The United States has countered with demands for the fighting to stop immediately, the officials said. Peace talks are supposed to resume by Feb. 25.

The talk of new ceasefire plans comes as the U.S., Russia and more than a dozen other countries meet in Munich to try to halt five years of civil war in the Arab country. The conflict has killed more than a quarter—million people, created Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since World War II and allowed the Islamic State to carve out its own territory across parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq.

Russia says it is supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government as part of a counterterrorism campaign. But the West says the majority of its strikes are targeting moderate groups that are opposed to Assad and the Islamic State.

The most recent Russian—backed offensive, near Aleppo, prompted opposition groups to walk out of peace talks last month in Geneva, while forcing tens of thousands of civilians to flee toward the Turkish border.

The U.S. officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly about private diplomatic discussions in the run—up to the Munich conference and demanded anonymity. One said the U.S. can’t accept Russia’s offer because opposition forces could suffer irreversible losses in northern and southern Syria before the ceasefire ever takes hold.

The officials said the U.S. counterproposal is simple- A ceasefire that is effective immediately and is accompanied by full humanitarian access to Syria’s besieged civilian centers.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who arrived in Germany on Wednesday, had talks planned late in the evening with U.N. peace envoy Staffan de Mistura and Adel al—Jubeir, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, a key backer of Syria’s rebel groups.

The Obama administration has been trying for months to clinch a ceasefire and pave the way for a transition government in Syria that would allow parties to the conflict to concentrate on defeating the threat posed by the Islamic State and the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front.

But after having long demanded Assad’s ouster, the shift in the U.S. focus to combating terrorism has resulted in a confusing mix of priorities and a layered strategy in Syria that few understand, and even fewer see working. Beyond Russia, the administration has often struggled to keep its own allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia in line.

“We will approach this meeting in Munich with great hopes that this will be a telling moment,” Mr. Kerry said on Tuesday in Washington. His peace push coincides with Defence Secretary Ash Carter’s attendance at a gathering in Brussels to hash out military options with NATO partners.

Brett McGurk, the Obama administration’s point—man for defeating the Islamic State, said Russia’s Aleppo offensive was having the perverse effect of helping the extremists by drawing local fighters away from the battle against IS and to the war against Syria’s government.

“What Russia’s doing is directly enabling ISIL,” Mr. McGurk told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington.

But the panel’s top Democrat echoed some of the frustration of his Republican colleagues with the larger U.S. strategy.

“It seems as if we’re only half-heartedly going after ISIS, and half-heartedly helping the (rebel) Free Syria Army and others on the ground,” said Rep. Eliot Engel, Democrat—New York. He urged a “robust campaign, not a tentative one, not one that seems like we’re dragging ourselves in ... to destroy ISIS and get rid of Assad.”

Mr. Kerry emphasized on Tuesday that U.S. officials “are not blind to what is happening.” He said the Aleppo battle makes it “much more difficult to be able to come to the table and to be able to have a serious conversation.”

But the U.S. has staked its hopes for an end to the five—year civil war in Syria on the peace talks and Assad’s eventual departure, saying the American public has no appetite for a military solution.

To that end, Washington has tempered its calls dating back to August 2011 for Assad to immediately leave power. And to get Russia on board, it now won’t even say that Assad should be barred from running for re—election if and when a new Syrian constitution is drafted.

The ambiguity has emboldened Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, while upsetting American allies in the Middle East, who are frustrated by a process that appears to lock the Syrian leader in place well into 2017 and perhaps beyond.

Read More

U.S. lifts sanctions; Iran comes in from the cold

The United States on Saturday removed a wide range of sanctions against Iran after International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Tehran has met its commitments to roll back its nuclear programme, under an agreement with China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the U.S and Germany on July 14, 2015.

Minutes after Secretary of State John Kerry, after a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, announced in Vienna that the deal has come into force, a White House official described the development as “historic” and an “inflection point in Iran’s relations with the world since concerns developed about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.”

Entire world is safer: Kerry

“Today... the United States, our friends and allies in the Middle East, and the entire world are safer because the threat of the nuclear weapon has been reduced,” Mr. Kerry said.

The U.S has only removed secondary sanctions that restrict the dealings of other countries with Iran. Primary sanctions that bar U.S citizens and companies from business with Iran will remain.

Iran stands to benefit immensely

However, the removal of restrictions on its oil, petrochemicals, banking, natural gas and port sectors will hugely benefit Iran and allow it to reenter the global market. As an instant relief, Iran will be able to access the huge amount of cash it has accumulated overseas from restricted oil sales during the sanctions.

Most of this money is sitting in China, India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey.

$100-150 billion for Iran

Commentators have estimated a windfall of $100-150 billion for Iran, but a U.S treasury official, briefing on condition of anonymity said the removal of sanctions will unlock only an estimated $50 billion. “Iran is likely to continue to keep it abroad to keep its own currency stable,” the official said.

Chabahar port, IPI gas pipeline

The removal of sanctions will tremendously help India’s plans in Iran, which are many and include the Chabahar port, an Indian Oil petrochemical plant and the proposed Iran–Pakistan–India (IPI) gas pipeline.

India’s oil imports from Iran have been restricted by the sanctions and the recent forward movement on Chabahar port was accommodated within the exemption granted for projects exclusively serving commerce with Afghanistan.

“With the lifting of the sanctions, the scope of India-Iranian cooperation, including the scope of the Chabahar port, can be expanded,” an Indian diplomat said.

U.S. has to keep anti-Iran allies happy

The Obama administration officials were upbeat on Saturday about the “diplomatic success” with a country with which it has no diplomatic relations. “Iran has made unprecedented concessions,” a senior official said.

But the administration has the tough task ahead, of keeping anti-Iran allies in West Asia such as Saudi Arabia and Israel happy and countering domestic criticism by the Republicans that it is going soft on Iran.

Jon B. Alterman, Director, Middle East Programme, at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said: “U.S allies in the region fear that the U.S. focus on the nuclear threat distracts the United States from the array of other threats that Iran poses to the region. The U.S will have to reassure Saudi and UAE and others that that is not the case.”

Long way to go for normal U.S.-Iran diplomacy

Mr. Alterman also believes that the possibility of U.S and Iran entering into normal diplomatic relations is “very far off.” “There are still many reasons each side is distrustful of the other.” He said, Iran wanted to be treated like a normal country, while other countries want Iran to behave like a normal country. “This is a step in that direction but the onus is on Iran to prove that its behavior fits into international norms. That is still a long journey.”

For the consumption of allies in the region and foes at home, the Obama administration insists that the deal is only about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

No relationship perspective: Kirby

“The Iran deal was never about defining or improving our relationship with Iran. It was about cutting off their pathways to a nuclear bomb, and it will do that. So nobody is looking at this from a relationship perspective,” State Department spokesperson John Kirby said hours before the implementation of the deal. The U.S has also made it clear that it continues to treat Iran as a state-sponsor of terrorism, and punitive actions prescribed for promoting terrorism, human rights violations and missile tests will continue. A U.S official said on Saturday that new sanctions for a ballistic missile test by Iran recently “will be forthcoming at an appropriate time.”

Resolving other issues

At the same time, administration and U.S allies in West Asia are aware of the potential this holds for the U.S in dealing with a host of other issues in the region. “The nuclear talks have opened up the possibility of resolving other issues also. We now have established strong diplomatic channels. The Secretary and Iranian Foreign Minister worked closely on the release of U.S sailors earlier this week, and we used the same channels to secure the release of U.S prisoners from Iran,” one of the officials who briefed on background said.

Read More

Obama’s Syria strategy under attack

The future of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad is a bone of contention not only between U.S and Russia, but also among U.S politicians and policymakers. As the civil war drags on, President Barack Obama’s Syria strategy is coming under attack domestically on three questions – should the U.S fight the Islamic State and Mr. Assad at the same time, should there be deployment of U.S combat forces on the ground and whether the policy of zero civilian casualty is rendering U.S airstrikes in Syria ineffective.

Meanwhile, a meeting on Friday of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) countries in New York is expected to narrow their differences over the future of Assad. A UN Security Council resolution later is expected to endorse a political process that will kick off in January towards an election in 18 months in Syria.

Early this week in Moscow, U.S secretary of State John Kerry had after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin said both countries viewed Syrian conflict "fundamentally very similarly.” Mr. Kerry also declared that the U.S was “not seeking so-called regime change.” But this did not mean an agreement between the two countries.

“…not everybody is unified about the future of Assad inside the ISSG. …What’s important for the United States at this point in the process is that we keep driving towards the ultimate objective, which is a Syrian government away from Assad.. And one of the key issues still outstanding is the future of Assad and not only how long does he stay, but in what capacity does he stay. All that work still needs to be done,” State Department spokesperson John Kirby said on Thursday.

Mr. Obama is facing strident opposition criticism for his Syria strategy, which the Republicans say is failing. In the presidential debate this week, Senator Ted Cruze reiterated his call for “carpet bombing,” while frontrunner Donald Trump said Mr. Obama must choose who is the bigger enemy - IS or Assad. Mr. Trump had earlier called for ‘Russian style’ bombing, which a U.S military spokesman had called “reckless and irresponsible.” Several Republican candidates also called for ground combat against IS, something that Mr Obama has been particularly wary of.

However, conventional conservative view is more nuanced than the admiration shown for Mr. Putin by Mr. Trump. Mr. Assad cannot be allowed to continue, Douglas J. Feith, former under secretary of defence and a key adviser to George W Bush on Middle East, told The Hindu in an interview. “Assad’s survival in power would be an important victory not only for Russia, but for Iran too. America has a large interest in preventing that.”

Mr. Feith, however, agrees, “the military operation is extremely constrained by the insistence on zero civilian casualty.” “There has to be an assessment of the potential collateral damage against the military objective of a particular mission. How can we succeed if we consider drivers of IS oil tankers civilian targets and therefore do not bomb them?”

Though non-committal on the question of boots on the ground, Mr. Feith believes that is a relevant issue. “Everything cannot be achieved from the air and there has to be some ground presence. We already have some presence on the ground, but whether that is good enough or not has to be decided on the basis of current information. If I were in administration that is a question I would ask now - whether we are doing what is required to meet our objective of defeating the IS.”

Read More