Better than expected, but not good

Two weeks into the cessation of hostilities in Syria and just a weekend before proximity talks are scheduled to reconvene in Geneva, UN envoy Stefano De Mistura is saying that the chances for peace have never been better. There is, he says, “momentum” behind both humanitarian assistance and de-escalation. His hopes for a political settlement come from the newfound agreement of Moscow and Washington as well as the backing of others in the international community.

All of that is true, but it is a low bar. The prospects for a political agreement in Syria have long been dim to negligible. The current momentum comes from putting aside the central issue: whether Bashar al Assad will continue in power. Moscow and Tehran show no sign of dropping their support for him, even if both say repeatedly that they are not wedded to him. Washington might like to abandon the opposition entirely, but even if it does some of them will continue fighting as long as Assad is in power.

The cessation of hostilities has however held better than I and many others anticipated. The question is why. It seems to me that the Iranians and Russians had achieved most of their objectives and needed to consolidate their gains. In recent weeks, they and the Syrian armed forces were responsible for the vast majority of the attacks. If they had continued much longer they’d have ended up laying siege to the opposition-held part of Aleppo, where several hundred thousand people remain. That would have made them responsible for either starving them or feeding them. Better to stop when they did and let the international community do the heavy lifting required and pay the bills.

The United States has spent upwards of $5 billion on humanitarian relief in Syria, much of it through international organizations. Russia and Iran to my knowledge have spent nothing through the international community, though the Russians have dropped a few pallets of food in a feeble effort to get some credit. Many sieges continue in Syria. I’ve seen no comprehensive account of where humanitarian aid has been delivered and where not, but the relief provided so far will have been marginal and temporary at best. Nor have tens of thousands of political prisoners been released.

The Syrian government and their Russian allies continue to pummel some rebel-held areas from the air. They do not target only the Islamic State and Jabhat al Nusra, extremists not covered by the ceasefire. They have also attacked civilians in areas close to Damascus and in other parts of Syria. The Syrian Network for Human Rights reports 435 ceasefire violations, as of yesterday. That’s an average of about 30 per day.

People in opposition-held areas are appreciating the respite from war, which has engulfed civilian areas of central and northern Syria since the Russians started bombing in September. It should be no surprise that they have taken advantage of the opportunity to go out in the streets to demonstrate against Bashar al Assad. Syrians are not lacking in courage and conviction.

Bashar al Assad isn’t either. He has announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an effort to preempt talk of a political transition. I see no sign that he is headed out the door.

So yes, things are better than expected, but they are not good. Or as Fadl AbdulGhani, Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, puts it:

I would say that on a scale between terrible and bad, the truce has been a marginal success—but this is only based on the limited options facing Syrians.

Odds are still against a political settlement that will lead to transition.