In the weeks leading up to the agreed upon cessation-of-hostilities (CoH) agreement
between the US and Russia, it was John Kerry’s diplomacy that was instrumental
in “downgrading” the truce from a more forceful and legally binding “ceasefire”
agreement to the less intensive “cessation-of-hostilities” now taking effect.
As described by
Kerry: “So, a ceasefire has a great many legal prerogatives and requirements.
A cessation of hostilities does not. A ceasefire in the minds of many of the
participants in this particular moment connotes something far more permanent
and far more reflective of sort of an end of conflict, if you will. And it
is distinctly not that. This is a pause dependent on the process going forward.”
So why the insistence on non-permanence? Especially if, as Kerry says, the ultimate objective is to “obtain
a durable, long-term ceasefire” at some point in time?
According to the 29-year career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, India’s
former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey M.
K. Bhadrakumar, it is
plainly because “the Russian military operations have met with devastating success
lately in strengthening the Syrian regime and scattering the Syrian rebel groups,”
leading “the US and its regional allies” to “stare at defeat.” Therefore, they
“forthwith need an end to the Russian operations so that they can think up a
Plan B. The Geneva talks will not have the desired outcome of President Bashar
Al-Assad’s ouster unless the tide of war is reversed.” Therefore, “a cessation
of hostilities in Syria is urgently needed.”(1)
Judging by the fact that top US officials began announcing that Russia would
break the deal immediately after it was agreed upon while calling for further
measures to “inflict
real pain on the Russians”, Bhadrakumar’s assessment that a pause, and not
a permanent halt, was sought in order to regroup and eventually reverse the
tide of war seems to be quite apt. As well there has been an almost ubiquitous
media campaign in the US to prime the public for accusations of a Russian infraction,
from which a breakdown of the deal would follow; the narrative portrayed is
filled with “doubts” and “worries” and “statements from US officials” about
how Russia isn’t serious and will likely break the agreement.