Ceasefires during conflicts are always hailed for the corridor they provide for providing humanitarian aid to the victims. Its biggest downside is that the rivals can use the break in fighting to mobilise their forces for a more rigorous attack when the truce is called off. The Syrian opposition is making this accusation against the government forces as the truce in the country nears a week, and the charge is not baseless.
The cessation of hostilities came into force on February 27 and despite the minor and even bigger violations, it has remained intact due to the decision by either side not to kill it too fast. But the opposition said yesterday that the government was mobilising forces on many fronts and attacks on rebels were continuing on strategically important frontlines. For example, rockets fired by government forces hit near the rebel-held town of Jisr al-Shughour in Idlib province.
There is no doubt that this ceasefire, despite the violations and serious doubts about the intentions of Bashar Al Assad regime, must be welcomed as it is the first of its kind in a conflict that has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced millions. One reason it has stayed is because it has been sponsored by the US and Russia despite the fact that it has not been signed directly by the Syrian warring parties and is less binding than a formal ceasefire.
But ceasefires must lead to a solution to a conflict, or at least serve as a stepping stone towards some kind of a rapprochement between the warring parties. That seems to be not happening in Syria as peace talks planned for next week are unlikely to take place due to opposition by the opposition.
Rebels have yet to say whether they will attend the talks planned for March 9. Opposition coordinator Riad Hijab said the conditions for talks were ‘not favourable’ though it was too early to say whether they would happen or not.
Russia should not use the truce and its role in this conflict to keep Assad in power. Western and Arab countries want Assad to relinquish power, and the main opposition council says he should leave before any political transition starts. Russia has stood by Assad, while saying only Syrians should decide his fate. That’s a stance which will only prolong this conflict.
The impact of the current truce will be clear once it collapses or when it is called off. The opposition is saying the government is mobilising forces to “occupy very important strategic areas”. If that happens, the ceasefire will fail to achieve any other objective than delivering humanitarian aid and its benefits will be erased by the more fiery attacks by Russian and Syrian forces.
Ceasefires during conflicts are always hailed for the corridor they provide for providing humanitarian aid to the victims. Its biggest downside is that the rivals can use the break in fighting to mobilise their forces for a more rigorous attack when the truce is called off. The Syrian opposition is making this accusation against the government forces as the truce in the country nears a week, and the charge is not baseless.
The cessation of hostilities came into force on February 27 and despite the minor and even bigger violations, it has remained intact due to the decision by either side not to kill it too fast. But the opposition said yesterday that the government was mobilising forces on many fronts and attacks on rebels were continuing on strategically important frontlines. For example, rockets fired by government forces hit near the rebel-held town of Jisr al-Shughour in Idlib province.
There is no doubt that this ceasefire, despite the violations and serious doubts about the intentions of Bashar Al Assad regime, must be welcomed as it is the first of its kind in a conflict that has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced millions. One reason it has stayed is because it has been sponsored by the US and Russia despite the fact that it has not been signed directly by the Syrian warring parties and is less binding than a formal ceasefire.
But ceasefires must lead to a solution to a conflict, or at least serve as a stepping stone towards some kind of a rapprochement between the warring parties. That seems to be not happening in Syria as peace talks planned for next week are unlikely to take place due to opposition by the opposition.
Rebels have yet to say whether they will attend the talks planned for March 9. Opposition coordinator Riad Hijab said the conditions for talks were ‘not favourable’ though it was too early to say whether they would happen or not.
Russia should not use the truce and its role in this conflict to keep Assad in power. Western and Arab countries want Assad to relinquish power, and the main opposition council says he should leave before any political transition starts. Russia has stood by Assad, while saying only Syrians should decide his fate. That’s a stance which will only prolong this conflict.
The impact of the current truce will be clear once it collapses or when it is called off. The opposition is saying the government is mobilising forces to “occupy very important strategic areas”. If that happens, the ceasefire will fail to achieve any other objective than delivering humanitarian aid and its benefits will be erased by the more fiery attacks by Russian and Syrian forces.
