On Thin Syrian Ice

The agreement modifying the February accords on the Syrian crisis settlement proved to be a failure almost as soon as they came into force last week. The proposed regime on the cessation of hostilities was in jeopardy, not only because of the numerous violations committed by different groups in Syria, but also because of external forces and the increasingly active terrorist organizations in the country, contributing to the destabilization of the fragile ceasefire. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation Aleksandr Aksenenok gives his opinion on the logic of recent events.

The agreement modifying the February accords on the Syrian crisis settlement proved to be a failure almost as soon as they came into force last week. The proposed regime on the cessation of hostilities was in jeopardy, not only because of the numerous violations committed by different groups in Syria, but also because of external forces and the increasingly active terrorist organizations in the country, contributing to the destabilization of the fragile ceasefire. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation Aleksandr Aksenenok gives his opinion on the logic of recent events.

Mr. Aksenenok, following the September 20 meeting of the International Syria Support Group, John Kerry announced that it was too early to give up on the peace process in Syria. Do you agree with the recognition that there is resistance to the agreement?

I hope I am not exaggerating when I say that everything that happened just a few days ago was not unexpected, although the scale and horror of the incident exceeded our worst fears. However, despite the numerous accusations being thrown around between Russia and the United States, the opposition and the Syrian leadership, and the United States and the Syrian leadership, you get the feeling that the parties are interested in the same thing – in finding a formula that would put an end to the vicious circle of violence in Syria and moving towards real negotiations involving all groups.

Will the threats from the United States interfere with the negotiations and the implementation of the peace process? The statement made by John Kirby, Spokesperson for the United States Department of State, on the need to review the prospects of cooperation with Russia to settle the Syrian crisis following the supposed shelling of a UN humanitarian convey in the southwestern suburbs of Aleppo, for example?

TASS
Aleksandr Aksenenok

You’ve identified the problem correctly, and it is very real. The United States does not have a consistent approach to the issue. There are elements within the Pentagon and other agencies – the Department of State headed by John Kerry, for example – that are against searching for an agreement with Russia. And I can say that there are people in Russia who hold similar sentiments. It’s a pretty easy conclusion to come to, as all you have to do is look at what the papers are saying or turn on one of the state TV channels.

Is it fair to say that we are witnessing the uncoordinated actions of the Department of State and the Pentagon? Was the airstrike on the province of Deir ez-Zor a planned attack or did the Department of Defense act alone?

Of course, it’s just like you said – a lack of coordination. More than that, the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies are more than likely trying to throw a spanner in the works for John Kerry. It is possible that certain individuals within the Presidential Administration are involved. And all the hints coming from the American side about it being the “last chance” or the “the dialogue could be ended” are not methods to work with Russia.

In fact, Russia has a great deal of experience in working with everyone concerned – with both the Syrian government and the opposition. So we have a very good understanding of all the nuances of the situation in Syria. And the Americans are often compelled to acknowledge that the Russian approach makes sense.

What unites Russia and the United States today? The reluctance and unwillingness to allow a situation in which the Bashar al-Assad regime is overthrown by force and where chaos would rule under newly established Islamist jihadist rule in Damascus. This is what unites the Russian and American sides, and it can serve as an incentive to preserve at the very least their fragile relationship, if, of course, the upcoming U.S. presidential elections do not ruin these efforts.

REUTERS/SANA
Alexey Khlebnikov:
New Syria Ceasefire: Same Old Story

It is not just the Americans who have carried out airstrikes on the Syrian Army’s positions in Deir ez-Zor. The United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark have also bombed the area. Can we assume that our European colleagues will more readily try to project their “soft power” in the form of a negotiation format and act as mediators in the U.S.–Russia dialogue?

I think that Germany, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier in particular, is trying to play a constructive role. Although Russia was categorically opposed to Steinmeier’s proposal to establish a no-fly zone, or a so-called “safe zone”, in Syria. Nevertheless, in my view, Europe could take part in the negotiation process. But they don’t have a unified stance on the issue: the problem is that it is far too difficult to bring the differing approaches to the various issues together. And we’re not just talking about Syria here. In this case, I believe it would be best if the main players continued to be the United States and Russia, particularly if they can find common ground with the powers in the region (Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey).

In a lecture you gave at Lomonosov Moscow State University, you talked about the “face-saving” formula that allows opposition groups to become official political parties (similar to what happened with the FARC in Colombia). Do you think this could work in Syria’s case?

I do. The Geneva Communiqué signed on June 30, 2012, which, along with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254, is one of the basic international legal documents on the settlement of the Syrian crisis, includes a proposal on the very kind of government model you are talking about.

Interviewed by Evgeniya Drozhashchikh, RIAC blogger