Global powers aiming to reach a ceasefire agreement for the conflict in Syria fell short during negotiations in Munich, but secured a limited deal for the delivery of humanitarian aid and a possible timetable for a temporary “cessation of hostilities” in a week’s time, the Associated Press reported on Friday. The agreement, which is said to be a compromise between an American demand for an immediate ceasefire and a Russian proposal to implement one starting on March 1, comes amid reports that U.S. allies and Syrian rebels are growing increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis in Syria.
While ministers from the International Syria Support Group successfully reached a deal to “accelerate and expand” humanitarian aid deliveries to war-torn communities starting this week, their failure to ink a ceasefire agreement “leaves the most critical step to resuming peace talks unresolved,” according to the AP. There was no clear indication following the group’s announcement as to whether the deep divides between the parties could be overcome, and Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that the agreements only amounted to “commitments on paper.”
“The real test is whether or not all the parties honor those commitments and implement them,” Kerry added. While he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are to chair a working group to work on the “modalities” of a temporary ceasefire, many issues remain unresolved.
For one, Iran, Syria, and Russia want rebel groups backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Arab states to be excluded from the ceasefire. However, only the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda, are ineligible for the ceasefire so far as they are United Nations designated terrorist organizations.
The partial agreement announced Friday comes amid reports that allies and Syrians are growing more critical of American policy on Syria. The Wall Street Journal reported (Google link) Thursday that a number of U.S. allies, including Egypt and Jordan, are beginning to see a need to increasingly align with Russia. This “dynamic reflects growing frustration among some U.S. allies with the Obama administration’s position, and runs the risk of making the battlefield even more chaotic,” according to Arab and European officials cited by the Journal.
The report follows several accounts of the growing frustration expressed by American allies and Syrian groups about U.S. support, with France on Wednesday describing the Obama administration’s policy on Syria as “ambiguous.”
“We don’t have the feeling that there is a very strong commitment that is there,” said outgoing French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius about the White House’s stance on Syria. “I don’t think that the end of Mr Obama’s mandate will push him to act as much as his minister declares [publicly],” he remarked, referring to Kerry. “There are words, but actions are different and obviously the Iranians and Russians feel that.”
Fabius’ criticism of the Obama administration’s resolve echoed sentiments expressed by Syrians civilians and rebels opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, many of whom say that they have been abandoned by Washington. A New York Times report on Wednesday described the despair over the lack of American support as reaching “a new level” in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, which is experiencing a severe humanitarian crisis after the launch of an intense Russian airstrike campaign two weeks ago. According to the Times, anti-Assad rebels had long worried that the Obama administration did not truly want them to win, lest a sudden regime change solidify the power of Sunni extremists, but thought that the U.S. was at least willing to help them fight until the Syrian government could be pressured to engage in diplomatic negotiations. The perceptions of these rebels have recently shifted, however, and “now they fear that the United States and its allies may actually let them lose.”
The Times added that Kerry has been subject to intensifying criticism after he was approached last week by a group of Syrian relief workers following an international aid conference for Syria in London. According to one of the workers, the group asked the secretary to put more pressure on Russia and the Syrian government to cease attack on civilians, but Kerry “seemed to blame the opposition for refusing to participate in United Nations-led talks in Geneva, and when the Syrians mentioned that 230 barrel bombs had fallen on Aleppo that day, he corrected them, saying it was 180.” Kerry also reportedly said that the rebels would be decimated in three months time.
When pressed as to whether Kerry was “badgering” the Syrian opposition, State Department Spokesman John Kirby said that Kerry was simply objecting to the rebels placing “preconditions” on attending negotiations about Syria’s future. An editorial in The Washington Post last week pointed out that the rebels’ preconditions, such as a halt to the bombing of civilians and the end to sieges by Assad’s forces, were called for by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, which was supported by both the U.S. and Russia.
The Times reported last Thursday that Maj. Hassan Ibrahim, a Syrian rebel commander who had defected from Assad’s army, said that his forces were facing hardships, including the depletion of weapons and funds from America and its allies, and the increased difficulty of crossing in and out of Jordan.
The paper added on Saturday that rebels facing Assad “expressed anguish” that the Syrian army was advancing even as talks were supposed to take place in Geneva. One activist, Yaser al-Hajj, asked, “Why is the United States letting this happen? They are letting Russia do whatever it wants. This will help the terrorists.” According to the Times, Hajj was arguing that with the collapse of the moderate rebels opposing Assad, the Islamic State would be strengthened.
A reporter pressed Kirby on the Obama administration’s policy on Syria on Tuesday, saying at the State Department’s daily press briefing:
It doesn’t seem as – I mean, communiques, whether they’re from Geneva or Vienna or some other European city, and resolutions from the UN or elsewhere, are just pieces of paper. They don’t actually do anything on their own, particularly when people are unable or unwilling to fulfill the commitments that are outlined in them. So the point of these – what the people who are complaining or criticizing the policy or what they see as a lack thereof a policy isn’t that you haven’t gotten pieces of paper that you can wave and say, “You signed up to this, Russia. You signed up to this, Iran. Now you have to follow through on it.” It’s not that. It’s that nothing is actually being done on the ground.
Kirby responded, “pieces of paper do matter.”
[Photo: U.S. Department of State / YouTube ]