Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy to Syria, met recently with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus to offer what he hopes will be a gradual approach to ending the country's protracted civil war. His ideas fall short of a peace plan, as they fail to address the country's future, the transition period and the way to get foreign fighters out of the country. But for Al-Assad, eager to appear open to proposals from the international community, the plan is “worth studying.” Yet none of the opposition figures contacted by the Weekly have had consultations with de Mistura, and most seemed sceptical, if not outright offended, by the special envoy's concept of creating “freeze zones” in the country, starting with Aleppo. The reason de Mistura offered Aleppo as a guinea pig in his cease-fire scheme is that the city is on the verge of an important confrontation, with the regime and the opposition bracing for a battle that many believe may be decisive for the country's future. With so much at stake, de Mistura must have thought that both sides would be amenable to a cessation of hostilities. But most opposition groups seem to have learned about de Mistura's initiative from the media, and many think it can only strengthen the regime's hand and crown its war of attrition with eventual political gains. Much is still unknown about the initiative, but what has transpired is far from reassuring. The initiative does not seem to specify which parties should sign it, which regional or international powers should monitor its implementation, and what kind of political deal it may involve. De Mistura has described his initiative as a “plan for action” that focuses on one area but can be replicated in others. Although unclear on the political implications of his scheme, the UN envoy seems to hope that it can be a start for wider diplomacy. Once the violence has ebbed, he said, “diplomatic efforts would then also build on an incremental freezing of military activities to arrive at a national and all-inclusive political process.” The plan, incremental and tentative as it is, contrasts with the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi, the former UN envoy, whose focus was mostly on endgame solutions rather than piecemeal fixes. Over recent weeks, de Mistura's approach to diplomacy in the region has been short-term and narrowly focused. He recently suggested that Turkey open its borders to Iraqi Kurdish fighters, known as the Peshmergas, with a view to their fighting against Islamic State (IS) forces, a move that many have seen as impinging on Syria's sovereignty. Members of Syria's opposition have described the “freeze zone” scheme as a palliative solution that does not augur well for the country as a whole. Free Syrian Army commanders in Aleppo seemed puzzled by the move, as it gives the regime a chance to shore up its political fortunes. Opposition members who spoke to the Weekly made it clear that any agreement with the regime should meet four conditions: the trial of suspected war criminals who may have used chemical weapons against civilians; the departure of sectarian militias fighting alongside the regime; an end to the killing of civilians by barrel bombs and aerial bombardments; and the release of all political detainees, especially women. Syrian opposition figure Haytham Manna said that military deals should only take place as part of a wider political deal. Speaking to the Weekly, Manna said, “De Mistura hasn't come up with a cohesive plan that can take hold. Perhaps if he meets with us we can come up with useful ideas together. But so far, this new proposal is just too murky.” Manna said that Washington and Moscow wanted to update the Geneva Agreement on the Syrian crisis but could not agree on the details. “The Russians believe that the Geneva Agreement should be updated in form, content and mechanisms, while the Americans are focusing only on the technical side. This is why all the initiatives keep falling apart,” he said. Opposition member Borhan Ghalyun said that de Mistura's initiative could undermine the Syrian revolution, helping the regime “to reap the fruits of its war of starvation, degradation, murder, and displacement.” Al-Assad was likely to agree to such a scheme, Ghalyun said, because it “would complete his destructive work and ... stabilise the de facto partitioning of the country.” The Syrian Democratic Forum offered cautious support for the initiative, describing it as a “credible political move aiming to promote agreement among those who are concerned for the homeland and its unity.” According to the Forum, the de Mistura initiative could lead to a cessation of the shelling of residential areas, the free passage of relief convoys, an end to the siege of populated areas, and a return of displaced people to their homes. But thus far the lack of political guarantees and the absence of an overall plan for a solution offer serious hurdles to de Mistura's initiative. The regime may have welcomed the move, but it also welcomed many other initiatives in the past before methodically undermining them. If de Mistura is to do better than his predecessor, he will need to come up with a scheme that will not only satisfy a regime bent on consolidating its power but also meet the demands of the opposition for political change. Ending the fighting in Syria is not going to be an easy task, but seeking peace at any price is not the answer.
