The Syria "Deal"

"Statement of the International Syria Support Group

11 February 2016

Meeting in Munich on February 11 & 12, 2016, as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States decided that humanitarian access will commence this week to besieged areas, and an ISSG task force will within one week elaborate modalities for a nationwide cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG members unanimously committed to immediately facilitate the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, adopted unanimously December 18, 2015. The ISSG reaffirmed their readiness to carry out all commitments set forth in the resolution, including to: ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communiqué in its entirety; press for the end of any indiscriminate use of weapons; support and accelerate the agreement and implementation of a nationwide ceasefire; facilitate immediate humanitarian access to besieged and hard-to-reach areas and the release of any arbitrarily detained persons; and fight terrorism.

Ensuring Humanitarian Access

In order to accelerate the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid, sustained delivery of assistance shall begin this week by air to Deir Ez Zour and simultaneously to Fouah, Kafrayah, the besieged areas of Rural Damascus, Madaya, Mouadhimiyeh, and Kafr Batna by land, and continue as long as humanitarian needs persist. Humanitarian access to these most urgent areas will be a first step toward full, sustained, and unimpeded access throughout the country.

The members of the ISSG will use their influence with all parties on the ground to work together, in coordination with the United Nations, to ensure that all parties allow immediate and sustained humanitarian access to reach all people in need, throughout Syria, particularly in all besieged and hard-to-reach areas, as called for in UNSCR 2254. To this end, the UN will submit a plan to an ISSG humanitarian task force, which shall convene on February 12 and next week. This group will comprise the ISSG co-chairs, relevant UN entities and members of the ISSG with influence on the parties in a position to ensure humanitarian access.

The ISSG reaffirmed that humanitarian access should not benefit any particular group over any other, but shall be granted by all sides to all people in need, in full compliance with UNSCR 2254 and international humanitarian law. The ISSG asks the UN to report weekly, on behalf of the task force, on progress on the implementation of the plan referenced above, so that in any cases where access lags or approvals are lacking, relevant ISSG members will use their influence to press the requested party/parties to provide that approval. There will be a process for resolving any problems so that relief can flow expeditiously. Any questions about access or delivery will be resolved through the task force.

All ISSG members commit to immediately work together with the Syrian parties to ensure no delay in the granting of approval and completion of all pending UN requests for access in accordance with UNSCR 2254, paragraph 12.

ISSG co-chairs and members will ensure that aid convoys are used solely for humanitarian purposes. International humanitarian organizations, in particular the United Nations, will play the central role, as they engage the Syrian government, the opposition and local populations, in arranging the monitoring and sustained and uninterrupted distribution of aid.

Achieving a Nationwide Cessation of Hostilities

The ISSG members agreed that a nationwide cessation of hostilities must be urgently implemented, and should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra, or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council. The ISSG members commit to exercise influence for an immediate and significant reduction in violence leading to the nationwide cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG members decided to take immediate steps to secure the full support of all parties to the conflict for a cessation of hostilities, and in furtherance of that have established an ISSG ceasefire task force, under the auspices of the UN, co-chaired by Russia and the United States, and including political and military officials, with the participation of ISSG members with influence on the armed opposition groups or forces fighting in support of the Syrian government. The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force. 

The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.  During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities.

The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to: a) delineate the territory held by Daesh, ANF and other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behavior by any of the parties to ISSG Ministers, or those designated by the Ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them. 

Although a cessation of hostilities can facilitate humanitarian access, it cannot be a precondition for such access anywhere in Syria.

The ISSG decided that all members will undertake their best efforts, in good faith, to sustain the cessation of hostilities and delivery of humanitarian assistance, and take measures to stop any activities prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2170, 2178, 2199, 2249, 2253, and 2254. The ISSG again expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.

Advancing a Political Transition

The members of the ISSG reaffirmed the imperative of all sides engaging in negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, in strict compliance with United Nations Security Council 2254. They reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria. The members of the ISSG pledge to do all they can to facilitate rapid progress in these negotiations, including the reaching of agreement within six months on a political transition plan that establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate.

Full implementation of these objectives will require the ISSG co-chairs and members, the UN and others, to work closely on political, humanitarian, and military dimensions.?

http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=4369

Comments

[Brunswick]

http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=4369

The summary.

[b]

I doubt that Kerry can deliver on "his" side, that the various Jihadis he sponsors will adhere to a ceasefire.

UNSC resolution 2254 also excludes Nusra, IS and all associated forces from any ceasefire and demands that these are confronted by all parties.

There will thereby be plenty of room to continue fighting.

[William R. Cumming]

What are its chances?

[johnf]

Thank God. Let's hope it works.

Anyone know which "other groups" this includes:

"The ISSG members agreed that a nationwide cessation of hostilities must be urgently implemented, and should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra, or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council.

[turcopolier]

b

I agree. This is really an agreement to facilitate humanitarian aid to surrounded localities. IMO that will work to some extent but the "ISSG task force" will undoubtedly use people like Mercy Corps to deliver the aid and they will inevitably lose people in the process as NGO groups keep losing people in Syria.. "Tant pis pour eux." The national level cease fire aspect of this is really "pie in the sky." I agree that the warring parties will continue shortly. pl

[gemini33]

Lavrov did not look happy at that press conference. Granted, they had been at the table for long hours and it was after midnight and -3 degrees in Munich according to an RT journo who ran a periscope livestream outside for a bit of it. Kerry seemed to have a cold/flu. But Lavrov looked genuinely pissed off, in my opinion. In the video below, there's no hand shaking thing at the beginning or end, though they may have done it off camera. We've seen Kerry and Lavrov together a lot of times in recent months. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but they're usually warmer toward each other. Maybe Lavrov is under the weather too. I hope things haven't broken down between them because it seems like they've been the glue holding things together a lot of the time.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvyEiUqGqcs

Yesterday, our anti-ISIS spox was openly fighting with Russia's Ministry of Defence on social media too. If it's true that we flew some planes and drones into Aleppo and bombed targets we then blamed on the Russians, that seems like a really big deal on a few levels. Plus the British troops with the Saudi troops advancing on the Syrian border through Jordan that Moon of Alabama wrote about yesterday? Did Jordan break its deal with Russia? Is this just a way to put some fast facts on the ground to prop up a weak bargaining position as part of the obvious huge push to pressure Russia this week? Boy, I hope so because if it's not, it's terrifying to think what could come out of that. Are the Israelis still massing troops in the Golan? Haven't heard much about that for a few weeks but it was in the news some weeks ago.

The call for Obama to exert more force has risen to a roar now. Please tell me we're not going to do something really stupid.

[gemini33]

AP's Matt Lee is the best US journo on State Dept issues. He's in Munich and this morning is correcting other news agencies (via Twitter) who are reporting a cessation of hostilities.

--------------------
#Munich talks on #Syria agree on humanitarian access and ceasefire to start in a week, IF details can be agreed.

#SecKerry says #Munich talks on #Syria "produced commitments on paper. Real test is whether the parties honor and implement them."

#Munich talks on #Syria did NOT produce ceasefire or Cessation of Hostilities. Agreement to work out "modalities" of CoH not same as CoH.

---------------------
Article he published in wee hours:
"Diplomats aim for temporary Syria truce in a week"
http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:00d5144e36354e058477ca62b8e8cf88

-----------------------

Maybe relevant, maybe not but Lee cites and comments on this tweet by McFaul who simply tweeted "Putin is winning in Syria". Matt Lee says it's an "interesting observation". It is interesting because McFaul ... well probably everyone here knows what kind of actor McFaul is.

https://twitter.com/APDiploWriter/status/698115797823021056

[gemini33]

Lavrov specifically said in the press conference something very close to this: 'Russian air forces will continue to operate against ISIS and al Nusra'

[Babak Makkinejad]

Likely, Russia could not get her goal of closure of the Turkish border.

[Poul]

A nice piece of divide and conquer by the R+6. If they get a cease fire the R+6 can concentrate on mauling Jabhat al-Nusra and IS good.

The al-Nusra controlled areas of Syria could by gone by the end of the year which will only undermining the rebels further. As an added bonus the mixing of al-Nusra troops with other rebel groups opens up the possibility of selected attacks on hostile groups under the cover of fighting al-Qaeda.

[LeaNder]

Kerry has a lot of reason to be grateful to Lavrov. If I may feed on my limited knowledge in this context. Handshakes without looking at each other have been reported over here. Forget the context. Not watching much TV.

Concerning Britain and Saudi Arabia, they were parts of the conference. Concerning your comment above, are the ones they want or plan to support listed by the UN as terrorists?

"Are the Israelis still massing troops in the Golan?"

Haven't paid much attention post events around UN troops at the frontier.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/102647-160212-russian-foreign-minister-calls-on-israel-to-re-examine-arab-peace-initiative

[LeaNder]

I agree concerning Matt Lee, good man.

[gemini33]

Carter's statements yesterday at NATO meeting about NATO joining anti-ISIS coalition (including "building partner capacity, training ground forces"):

------------------------
I should also mention that, thanks to the leadership of NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, we are now exploring the possibility of NATO joining the coalition as a member itself. This, too, is a significant development.

NATO as a new member would bring unique capabilities that could be brought to bear against ISIL, including experience in building partner capacity, training ground forces and providing stabilization support.

I look forward to discussing NATO's appropriate role with fellow NATO allies in the days and weeks ahead, and as I indicated this morning, that was discussed this morning, and a path ahead was charted at this morning's meeting.

And I also indicated this morning what kinds of capabilities NATO brings collectively, over and above what its individual members bring, and therefore how it could, as an organization, also make a separate contribution. That's very positive.

Now, many of the nations present today are also contributors to the critical non-military aspects of the campaign against ISIL. That's just as important. We discussed them, as well.

http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/655070/media-availability-with-secretary-carter-at-nato-headquarters-brussels-belgium
-------------------------

Later, in the questions, he talks about how they want the Saudis to wind down in Yemen and training to "enable capable and motivated local forces to take and hold territory out of the simple recognition that at the end of the day, territory retaken from ISIL has to be occupied and governed by people who are from that area and want to live there." He mentions Ramadi but at least one question was about Syria and he was affirmative.

He also talks about accompanying these ground forces: "We need forces on the ground that participate in training. Then enabling, including even accompanying partner forces."

[JohnH]

BBC reported last night that this deal is very limited in scope and does not cover much of Syria. Nonetheless, it is a very positive step in the right direction...if it happens on the ground.

[turcopolier]

All

I am impressed by the number of people for whom the humanitarian disaster in Syria is more important than the geopolitics of the ME. I am not numbered among them.

I have a number of reservations concerning this agreement that depend on future developments. 1- Will the successful ground offensive against rebel forces continue all over the country. If it does not then the stage is set for eventual destruction of the Syrian government and its replacement by a jihadi dominated government favored by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. If this occurs it will a refutation of my dictum that you can't win by BS at the negotiating table what you could not gain on the battlefield. 2- Will Turkey invade Syria between Azaz and Jarabulos? The Turks are currently grouping large forces from their 2nd Army just north of that stretch of border. If they do invade will the offensive carry south as far as Aleppo for which some Turks have long harbored irredentist hopes? This is also true of Mosul in Iraq. 3- Is Saudi Arabia really going to send its trivial little ground force into Syria from the panhandle of Jordan? The mind boggles at the thought. The mind also boggles at the idea of SA maintaining that force in the field at the end of a logistical tether reaching back through Jordan to Tabuk in NW Saudi Arabia. So far as I know SA has no power projection logistics capability at all. 4- Did the USAF really bomb targets in Aleppo City? If so, what targets and to what end? pl

[Thomas]

I have seen the news footage of them shaking hands at the end of the announcement with Lavrov not looking him and both pretty glum.

[Jack]

Sir

I'm curious what the Russians are thinking. Is this a fig leaf to prevent a Turkish, Saudi, US invasion?

It must be clear to all parties that the grinding of the jihadists will continue and that R+6 will make all efforts to cut the supply line from Turkey. It would make no sense for R+6 to give up their current battlefield momentum.

Is this "deal" going to be a pretext by both sides to blame failure on the the other side and use that as a smoke screen for military escalation?

I'd really like to understand what R+6 strategy is with this announcement.

[turcopolier]

jack

So would I. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

I think, based on what I have gleaned from a number of speeches by R+6 officials, that the plan on long hard slug of 5 more years.

I do not think that they expect Turkey to close her borders.

[b]

https://twitter.com/HalaJaber/status/698129080110182400
"Hala Jaber @HalaJaber
#HNC leader #Riyad_Hijab slams #Munich deal saying no ceasefire deal can be agreed before the removal of #Syria' s president."

---

Pat, what about the second brigade of the 101st that you were told would be send?

The Saudis would only go in under U.S. command. Probably through Jordan the north-east to capture Deir Ezzor and the oil in the area. A brigade of the 101st could do that with some attached Saudi spec-force as "Sunni" propaganda cover

A Turkish move to capture a border zone could come at the same time.

Russia would have difficulty to counter that. It is currently training one Syrian brigade specifically to counter a Turkish incursion. That may not be enough To fend of the 101st brigade it would need to airdrop a brigade into Deir Ezzor, punch IS away from there and go south-west to block the desert. Doable but risky.

[leCashier]

Is the purpose of this agreement really to give Turkey the political cover to invade? Or was this a way to keep the Turkish border open? But why would Iran and Russia agree to it? I was hopeful at first reading the headline, but now Im confused and little bit scared.

[Valissa]

This announcement triggered my "inner cynic" and my sense of this agreement is that it will only make things worse. No surprise that US cannot deal with Russian or R+6 success so far and probably "victory" and is doing it's best to sabotage that.

Today's informative post by retired diplomat MK Bhadrakumar confirmed all my suspicions. He makes an interesting point about the diplomatic difference between a "ceasefire" and the "cessation of hostilities". Obviously "Assad must go" is still the operative plan.

US presses ‘pause’ button in Syria http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/02/12/us-presses-pause-button-in-syria/
Ploughing through the transcript of the joint briefing given by the US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the overpowering sense is about the play of words.

Did you ever know that there could be difference between ‘ceasefire’ and ‘cessation of hostilities’? Now, Kerry explains:

"So, a ceasefire has a great many legal prerogatives and requirements. A cessation of hostilities does not – is not anticipated to – but in many ways, they have a similar effect. A ceasefire in the minds of many of the participants in this particular moment connotes something far more permanent and far more reflective of sort of an end of conflict, if you will. And it is distinctly not that. This is a pause dependent on the process going forward, and therefore cessation of hostilities is a much more appropriate, apt term… But the objective is to obtain a durable, long-term ceasefire at some point in time."

... Unsurprisingly, Lavrov who spoke immediately afterward reacted sharply to sidestep the minefield:

"(UN Security Council) Resolution 2254 talks about the ceasefire only. This term is not liked by some members of the International Syria Support Group. What I’m referring to is how something that has been agreed upon should be implemented rather than try to remake the consensus that has been achieved in order to get some unilateral advantages.

We have agreed to this because it is said clearly that this is the first step towards a ceasefire. John has explained that there isn’t much difference actually, but this play in words is the same thing as statements about the existence of some kind of Plan B, statements that ground forces should be prepared. This is a slippery road… there is no doubt that this will only lead to the aggravation of the conflict."

In plain terms, the Russian military operations have met with devastating success lately in strengthening the Syrian regime and scattering the Syrian rebel groups. The US and its regional allies stare at defeat.

They forthwith need an end to the Russian operations so that they can think up a Plan B. The Geneva talks will not have the desired outcome of President Bashar Al-Assad’s ouster unless the tide of war is reversed. Therefore, a cessation of hostilities in Syria is urgently needed.

Whereas a ceasefire brings in legal obligations, which would commit the US to sit across the table and meet the Russian – and, more importantly, Syrian – military counterparts and draw up detailed modalities of implementation, UN Security Council supervision and so on, the ‘cessation of hostilities’ can be punctuated at will without breaking international law.

Meanwhile, US and its allies are keen to gain access to all nooks and corners of Syrian territory, which will eventually help to mobilize any military operations under Plan B, especially ground operations. The humanitarian missions provide the cover for reconnaissance and ground work.

... A miracle is needed to make this ‘cessation of hostilities’ to morph into a durable ceasefire. There are far too many stakeholders, there are conflicting interpretations of what has been agreed upon, and the necessary flexibility to compromise is lacking. Clearly, the US and its regional allies have not conceded defeat in the Syrian war.
-----------------

This "cessation of hostilities" agreement sounds like an attack that's part of a war strategy, not a step towards peace.

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks P.L. for hitting the proverbial nail on its head. A very insightful comment IMO!

[Charles Michael]

Colonel,

I was surprised to see RT this morning endorsing the new casualiies count of 449.000 thousands, thus accepting the BBC uped figures.
There was also information of refugee camps established by Turkey just inside the Syrian territory. These camps being controlled by djihadists (Al-Masdar News)
Nato is sending a naval force to control the refugees flow in Greece. Are they supposed to puncture holes in rubber dinghy ? or is there an other purpose ?

USA is a formidable force in many ways, able to shift the ground, to play the finance angle and always much superior in communication.
Is there some other agreement unknown concerning other topics ? or is it all just world of the mouth ?
Time will tell, maybe.

It would be very frustrating and morally despictable to watch the liver eater escape.

[Thomas]

'Did the USAF really bomb targets in Aleppo City?"

From reports I read it was two A-10s and a drone. The question for me would be did the A10s hit legitimate targets and the drone hit the hospital for propaganda purposes? If the latter, I am willing to bet it was a CIA operated one.