Syria truce in tatters

Published September 26, 2016

THE truce that Washington D.C. and Moscow hammered out for Syria earlier this month is all but dead, and with it any hope for an end to hostilities in that forsaken land. As these lines were being written, the Syrian army was leading a brutal assault on the rebel-held parts of Aleppo. The humanitarian situation in what was once Syria’s commercial capital is dire, with reportedly 250,000 civilians besieged. The truce had slim chances of success, but offered a glimmer of hope for the Syrian people. However, it appears Syria’s future will be decided on the battlefield, and not the negotiating table, no matter what the cost in blood and treasure, as both the government and opposition refuse to relent. While there were ceasefire violations on both sides, the US bombing on Sept 17 — said to have been carried out ‘mistakenly’ — in which over 60 Syrian troops perished, helped seal the fate of the doomed truce, as Bashar al-Assad’s government soon thereafter called off the ceasefire.

Unfortunately, if the primary Syrian actors — the government in Damascus and the opposition — are not interested in a peaceful solution, no well-intentioned external effort can succeed. And after over five years of war, it is clear that both sides would rather stick to their guns than cede any space for a compromise solution. Mr Assad is convinced he can retake territory lost to the rebels and militants by force, regardless of the collateral damage, while the opposition’s rigidity is also problematic; more worryingly, the rebels have consorted with militant groups that have a clearly sectarian and extremist agenda. And, both sides have committed appalling atrocities in the conflict. So, when the Syrian belligerents themselves are uninterested in peace, external players will have limited impact on the conflict. Caught in between this geopolitical game and domestic strife are Syria’s hapless people. Sadly, there will be no end to their miseries until the leaders of Syria’s opposing factions decide to forsake bloodshed in favour of a negotiated settlement.

Published in Dawn, September 26th, 2016

Opinion

Editorial

Afghan turbulence
Updated 19 Mar, 2024

Afghan turbulence

RELATIONS between the newly formed government and Afghanistan’s de facto Taliban rulers have begun on an...
In disarray
19 Mar, 2024

In disarray

IT is clear that there is some bad blood within the PTI’s ranks. Ever since the PTI lost a key battle over ...
Festering wound
19 Mar, 2024

Festering wound

PROTESTS unfolded once more in Gwadar, this time against the alleged enforced disappearances of two young men, who...
Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...