Tomorrow is the last day of the Eid-related ceasefire in Syria; the plan that was hoped would be able to create a "break" in the tragedy of blood spilling and killings in Syria. Nevertheless, Western and Arab news agencies are reporting the continuation of conflicts in Syria. The commander of the armed opposition in the city of Aleppo has also told the France News Agency: "From the very beginning, Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan was born dead.' Why did the ceasefire plan not finalize?
Obstacles to the "Eid-related micro-strategy"
Although the news in the last few days have indicated bombings in Damascus and Dayr al-Zawr and the armed opposition have also announced that conflicts have continued, a relative decrease in conflicts cannot be dismissed with certainty nor can it be claimed that no change has occurred in the level of conflicts. However, it can be said that expectations from the plan dubbed the micro-strategy of the UN and the region's countries, within the framework of [Kofi] Annan's six point peace plan, were not met. It seems that the outcome of Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi's plan did not fulfil the interests of the Syrian opposition. One of the issues found with this plan is that there is no specific plan in it for the "day after" the Eid-related ceasefire; although, the complications of the Syrian crisis have also made the preparation of such a plan difficult. This point notwithstanding, the Eid-related micro-strategy would in practice have opened the way for a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
Distance between the Yemeni solution and the Syrian one
An overall approach shows that there are only two possibilities for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. The first possibility is that the crisis ends with a "political agreement"; something similar to what happened in Yemen. This means that in the shadow of a ceasefire, the countries of the region or Akhdar Al-Ibrahimi can create a "transitional government" by using intermediation and patriarchy, and also making hidden and visible deals. But in the current situation, this method will not get anywhere for two reasons. First, the Syrian government's opposition are greatly dispersed. Their various meetings during the past year in Turkey, France, Egypt and Qatar have shown that they have differences within themselves to the same degree that they have with Bashar al-Assad. The armed government opposition does not even have a united command. Therefore, the Syrian government's opposition lack united organization to be able to manage a political agreement. Additionally, in any solution based on a political agreement, the other side consists of the Syrian government. Although the Damascus government has said that it is ready for negotiations, it bases any agreement on the presence of Bashar Al-Assad in the transitional government; a condition that the opposition will not accept. For this reason, the opposition knows that if the ceasefire is supposed to lead to such a solution, they will not benefit from it.
Free elections and the opposition's problem
The other possibility of a political solution is the organization of "free elections." The government's opposition will not earn anything from this method either. They do not have a united and specific candidate; therefore dispersed votes in such elections will lead to nothing but defeat for them. Furthermore, a democratic way of change has certain customs, similar to what we witnessed in Egypt. Parliamentary and presidential elections without the existence of a new constitution, and ensuring the country's security, require individuals who know the methods and conventions of politics well; exactly what the Syrian opposition is lacking! Consequently, the second political solution will also fail to earn anything for the opposition.
The opposition do not like a ceasefire
Consequently, the Syrian government's armed opposition has had no reason to remain committed to a ceasefire. They have chosen the continuation of guerrilla warfare in the hope of weakening the government; a choice the winner of which is not apparent but its losers will undoubtedly be the innocent people of Syria.
A few other problems that have also obstructed the success of the Eid-related ceasefire should also be pointed out here:
A noticeable part of the armed fighters in Syria are armed foreigners; people who have come to Syria with the intention of jihad but holding heretic thoughts and are supported by Al-Qa'ida and some of the region's countries. These individuals also have no reason for accepting or keeping committed to a ceasefire.
Today, everyone knows that a group of European countries and the United States are present in the military and political front facing the Syrian government. These countries have repeatedly shown that in spite of claiming that they support the innocent people of Syria, they have no inclination to end the crisis in this country. The latest example of this is the Security Council's veto of the proposed Russian resolution for the necessity of a ceasefire. Analysts believe that the best situation for the US and the Europeans is the continuation of this crisis in a way that Syria remains a spent and non-influential country as far as regional developments are concerned, and the attention and capabilities of Iran and Hezbollah are focused on and limited to the crisis in Damascus, rather than Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and ...
No comments:
Post a Comment