Syria deal: The pros and cons

(Baonghean) - The historic agreement last week between US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov can be seen as a breakthrough from many perspectives. Expected to save many innocent lives, and set against the backdrop of the most horrific war of the 21st century, the agreement is considered something worth pursuing and striving to achieve.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Photo: Reuters.

The problem lies in the "limited" scope of influence of this multi-party agreement. Analysts note that while the ceasefire agreement has some fundamental significance, it remains a limited and more tactical agreement. Whether in terms of aid, the ceasefire, or coordination against extremist Islamic groups, neither Washington nor Moscow wants them to become an "unpleasant" part of Syria's future.

However, it must be frankly acknowledged that to reach the agreement, both senior diplomats from the two superpowers, the US and Russia, seemed to be carefully calculating, even deliberately avoiding, the most difficult and thorny issues. Among these, the most crucial issue, the ultimate fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not brought up in the negotiations. This omission has drawn considerable attention from Damascus, Aleppo, and many other key regional capitals that play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the conflict.

In fact, it's hardly surprising that the United States and Russia haven't reached a consensus. This isn't just because in Washington, the elites are almost unable to agree on what America should do. The same isn't true in Europe, where there's a chorus of concerns about the potential political repercussions of the influx of migrants. There, alongside many countries diligently seeking concrete solutions, there are also many nations yearning for a swift end to the Syrian war, at any cost.

In the United States, a group of State Department officials has urged Washington to take cautious military action against forces supporting the Assad regime in Syria. This is not because they believe Assad can be overthrown, but because they believe Assad's actions over the past five years – including the chemical attacks recorded last month – deserve a more punitive response.

Residents of Aleppo, Syria, receive food aid. Photo: Reuters.

Others, including many liberal and neoconservative voices, argue that this approach is unrealistic. They insist that weakening the Syrian government's ability to maintain control would only worsen an already bleak situation and make the long-term reconstruction of Syria more difficult, whether under a new government or under Assad's rule.

Washington is unlikely to resolve this issue before the presidential election in November. Therefore, whoever wins and becomes the occupant of the White House will have to develop a strategy that incorporates current developments in Syria, including conflict zones like Aleppo.

That is where joint US-Russia coordination to combat extremist Islamic groups is most likely to have a real impact. This would have implications on multiple levels. First, most regional and international powers, as well as local forces, are essentially on the same side. They all want the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) to cease to exist, although the question of what will replace IS remains a subject of debate.

In the event that Russian, American, and other aircraft operate in the same area, strict systems are essential to prevent accidental confrontations. According to Reuters, Moscow and Washington have been operating quite effectively there so far, even as the Syrian Air Force occasionally "trys its luck" by conducting airstrikes near where U.S. special forces are cooperating with moderate rebels.

The Syrian city of Idlib is devastated after airstrikes. Photo: Reuters.

Another point to note is that many parties are interested in the Syrian conflict beyond Russia and the United States. Both Iran, which supports Assad, and the Sunni Muslim powers supporting the opposition have their own perspectives and arguments. And with the deployment of military forces to Syria, Türkiye is becoming a player shaping the conflict in a way that goes beyond the top priorities of Kerry, Lavrov, Obama, and Putin.

Since Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan thwarted a coup attempt in July, it's clear he no longer feels obligated to any external power when it comes to shaping policy. Following recent ISIS attacks within its territory, Ankara is clearly just as keen to push back the group as Washington.

One day, the Syrian war may come to an end through an agreement negotiated at the international level. The Kerry-Lavrov agreement could then be seen as one of the building blocks for that brighter future. But for now, it simply opens the door to a new chapter in the ongoing conflict.

Phu Binh

(According to Reuters)