ArabDigest.org: Syria on a cliff edge

Syria on a cliff edge Summary: fighting continues, mainly in and around Idlib between the Syrian army and jihadis. International complications. Fighting, sometimes heavy fighting, continues in Syria, as does the human suffering. The situation on the ground is complex, and so is the alignment of various outside powers. Reading and summarising the whole picture is made more difficult by propaganda from all sides, so pervasive that all reports need to be looked at with a sceptical eye. With the best part of 3 million cooped up in the north-western province of Idlib the possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe on an even more horrific scale remains – but it hasn't happened yet. The fighting is mainly between the Syrian army which is seeking to extend government control over the whole of the country, and jihadi forces numbering many thousands who have been progressively expelled from their other strongholds but have been able to move to Idlib and retain control over large parts of it. The Syrian government forces have support from Russia, though not unconditional support. The jihadis have support, also qualified, from Turkey, reportedly backed up by financial support from Qatar. In a typically obscure development, Russians sources reported on 12 June that Russia and Turkey had brokered a complete ceasefire in Idlib which had led to a significant reduction in violence. The following day the Turkish Foreign Minister said that after a Turkish observation point had been shelled by Syrian government forces it was not possible to say that a ceasefire had been established, and Turkey would do what was necessary and expected Russia to put pressure on the Syrian government. The Russian ministry of defence said the attack had been by rebels, not the Syrian army, and Russia had carried out airstrikes against "militants" after the Turkish army had asked for its help. Yesterday 16 June the Turkish defence ministry said the Syrian army had made a second attack on a Turkish observation post; Turkey replied with heavy weapons, and made representations to Moscow. With the possibility that the civil war may come to an end, there is no international agreement on how to handle Syria after it is over. Arab states are divided; Syria has not been readmitted into the Arab league but the UAE and a few others have re-established diplomatic links. Russia wants to retain Syria as something like an ally; Washington wants that to end, and even more urgently wants to end Iranian influence and penetration in Syria. The country has been devastated and will desperately need funding for reconstruction. Ideally Russia would like to take a lead in doing the work, paid for by others – that does not appeal to Washington, which has discouraged any move to raise funding internationally. With the reservations implied in the first paragraph above, we draw attention to two recent articles which address the internal and external situations. The first (of 4 June) is an attempt by former British ambassador to Damascus Peter Ford to summarise the situation in Idlib, commenting also on chemical weapons and the possibility of US withdrawal. Ford has gone out on a limb many times casting doubt on media reports and government statements from Washington and elsewhere, particularly on the vexed question of chemical weapons, on which the jury is still out. Last month a number of UK-based academics challenged allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018. Last week Syria refused visas for a chemical weapons investigation team created last year by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons against Syrian and Russian opposition. The second article, published in the Abu Dhabi-based The National, is by the London based investigative journalist Faisal Al Yafai. He considers US attempts to isolate Syria and the Russian push for normalisation, and argues that Arab states have differing interests which they will quite rightly follow although the result will be untidy.