The question remains as to how effective Russia can be in maintaining a ceasefire
RAWALPINDI: It is heartening to see that something vital came out of the widely protested G-20 Summit. Hoping to exhibit new cooperation, the United States and Russia on Friday July 7th declared a ceasefire in a corner of Syria, but the announcement already has been met with widespread distrust and suspicion on the ground and in diplomatic quarters.
After all the destruction that has already been done, with all the damage caused, I feel a wave of relief wash over me when I see that there is finally a ray of hope. However, I feel equally skeptical about this ceasefire. Numerous similar efforts in the past have collapsed. Ceasefires agreed to by the US and Russia in Syria — including a recent ill-fated attempt to save the historic city of Aleppo — have never lasted long, and the US has often accused Moscow of using the cover of such pauses in battle to snatch territory.
However, many claim that it may be different this time around merely because the Russian government is more committed. This deeper investment in reaching a settlement of some sort is because people are getting tired of the conflict. If peace can be maintained in the South, it may be replicated in other parts of Syria.
The question remains as to how effective Russia can be in maintaining a ceasefire, especially since much of its focus in Syria has seemed to aim at bolstering Assad.
Mubashir Ahmed
Published in The Express Tribune, July 10th, 2017.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
