Secretary of State John Kerry, after talks with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, said an internationally brokered cease-fire in Syria had been undermined by two problems: bombings by the Syrian government and attacks by the Nusra Front.
“We agreed to steps that, if implemented in good faith, can address two serious problems that I just described about the cessation” of hostilities, Mr. Kerry said.
“It is possible to help restore the cessation of hostilities, significantly reduce violence and help create the space for a genuine political transition,” he said.
But Mr. Kerry refused to list the terms of the agreement.
“The concrete steps that we have agreed on are not going to be laid out in public in some long list,” he said, “because we want them to work and because they need more work in order to work. I want to emphasize, though, that they are not based on trust,” but on specific steps that needed to be taken by both sides.
Critics said the lack of details raised suspicions that Mr. Kerry had conceded too much.
“The fact no details were announced indicates whatever was agreed was hard to swallow and may be hard to implement, especially in light of the attempted coup in Turkey,” said Andrew J. Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, referring to events in Turkey on July 15.
Before Mr. Kerry’s talks in Moscow, a proposed agreement had called for the creation of a joint military command center staffed by military and intelligence officers who would share information so as to permit “integrated operations.” The proposal generated deep unease at the Pentagon and in some quarters of the State Department, where the plan was seen as too conciliatory to both the Russians and the Syrian president,Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Kerry left his meeting with Mr. Lavrov to pitch his proposed deal to the Obama administration’s top national security officials through a secure communications link at the nearby United States Embassy. After discussing the deal with the officials, Mr. Kerry returned to the bargaining table and asked most of the aides from both countries to leave so he could speak more directly with Mr. Lavrov.
The agreement has also raised alarms because it might lead the United States to support or even participate in strikes against groups fighting Mr. Assad. One of the great complications of the Syrian civil war is figuring out which groups should be considered rebels focused on ousting the Assad government — a goal the United States supports — and which groups are aligned with Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, both of which Washington has designated as terrorist organizations and has vowed to defeat.
The Nusra Front has been one of the most effective anti-Assad forces, and American-backed rebel groups often coordinate their activities with its units. In Russia’s view, that means that Washington is effectively supporting the Nusra Front and that the American-backed groups are legitimate targets. So a joint campaign against the group not only would appear to concede Russia’s point, but could also bring American firepower to bear against the strongest anti-Assad military force and a sometime partner of Washington’s allies.
Mr. Kerry made clear that defeating the Nusra Front was a major American priority.
“So if some critic is criticizing the United States or Russia for going after Al Nusra, which is a terrorist organization, because they’re good fighters against Assad, they have their priorities completely screwed up,” Mr. Kerry said. “The fact is that Nusra is plotting against countries in the world. What happened in Nice last night could just as well come from Nusra or wherever it came from as any other entity. Because that’s what they do.”
Mr. Lavrov said that supporting terrorist organizations would always lead to disaster.
“There were cases in history when some countries were trying to play with extremist and terrorist groups, hoping to use them to achieve their own geopolitical goals to topple undesirable regimes,” Mr. Lavrov said. He referred to American support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, which he said led to the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.
The other complication is that the Syrians and the Russians have routinely undermined previous cease-fires and other measures to spare civilian lives. In just the past week, the Syrian Army has announced cease-fires, only to conduct a military campaign around the rebel-held section of Aleppo, leaving about 300,000 people besieged.
Government forces are also advancing on the Damascus suburb of Daraya, one of the first areas to revolt against the government. In recent days, a refugee camp near the border with Jordan was bombed, and civilians were killed. It is not known who carried out the operation.
When asked whether Russia had violated previous cease-fire agreements, Mr. Lavrov said, “A lot could be said on who is to blame.”
The proposed agreement with the Russians, first reported by The Washington Post, would create a joint command center in Jordan to coordinate an intensified bombing campaign against the two militant groups. Both Russia and the United States have been attacking the Islamic State, though acting separately, with minimal coordination to avoid unintended conflict between their warplanes. Yet most of Russia’s airstrikes have been aimed not at the Islamic State but at other groups fighting Mr. Assad, including the Nusra Front and American-backed rebel groups.
The United States has carried out occasional strikes against what have been described as senior Qaeda figures in Syria. But it has refrained from systematic attacks against the Nusra Front, whose ranks are heavily Syrian, including many who left less extreme rebel groups because Nusra was better armed and financed.
The United States proposal states that American and Russian officials would share information on the locations of rebel groups to ensure that strikes aimed at Nusra did not hit American-backed groups. In the past, those groups — as well as some American officials — have worried that Russia might use that information to target them.
Mr. Kerry said Friday’s tentative agreement would not resolve anything immediately. “So we’re not here promising the world,” Mr. Kerry said. “Not here tonight to suggest that overnight things are going to change.” But he said the deal, if carried out in good faith, “has the opportunity to change the playing field significantly.”
“Let the proof be in the pudding, not our words,” he said.
Post a Comment