‘Joint Syrian Military Council’ Proposed to Russia as it Commits to Assad

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Syrian president Bashar Assad (L-R front) shake hands during a meeting, Damascus, March 23, 2020. (TASS via Getty Images)
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Syrian president Bashar Assad (L-R front) shake hands during a meeting, Damascus, March 23, 2020. (TASS via Getty Images)
TT
20

‘Joint Syrian Military Council’ Proposed to Russia as it Commits to Assad

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Syrian president Bashar Assad (L-R front) shake hands during a meeting, Damascus, March 23, 2020. (TASS via Getty Images)
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Syrian president Bashar Assad (L-R front) shake hands during a meeting, Damascus, March 23, 2020. (TASS via Getty Images)

Russia is not pleased with the pace set by Damascus at the Constitutional Committee talks in Geneva. It is also awaiting the development of US President Joe Biden’s policy towards Syria and Washington’s broader relations with Moscow.

Meanwhile, Russia received proposals from Syrian opposition figures for the formation of a joint military council that includes armed factions and defectors from the regime. The council would assume many duties, such as forcing the pull out of foreign forces and militias from Syria, unifying the country and its forces, and sponsoring the political solution. Russia would alone retain troops in the country.

As it stands, Russia is still maintaining its position that is based, first on prioritizing the upcoming presidential elections, set for mid-2021. It is hoping that Bashar Assad would win the elections, which would serve as a “turning point” to breaking Damascus’ international and regional isolation.

Second, Russia is keen on backing the constitutional reform path forged in Geneva and supporting the three “guarantors” - Moscow, Ankara and Tehran - at the upcoming Sochi talks. The talks would set the “mechanisms” for Constitutional Committee work to end the “negative” pace that was set by Damascus.

Third, Russia is relying on field settlements and understandings between warring parties, regime loyalists and their foreign sponsors in Sweida and Daraa in the south, al-Hasakeh, Qamishli and Aleppo in the north and northeast and Idlib in the northwest.

Given this vision, presidential envoy Alexander Lavrentiev said that Russia has “other calculations”, which he revealed during his recent secret visit to Damascus. Accompanied by senior generals, he met with Assad before heading to Geneva in late January.

In the meantime, Russia was approached with a proposal from Russian civil and military figures urging it to consider forming a joint military council. The suggestion was sent through various channels to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, his deputy Mikael Bogdanov and Alexander Zorin, a Russian defense ministry official in charge of the Syrian file.

Military council
The first proposal was submitted by opposition figures from the Moscow and Cairo “platforms” and focuses on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2254. It suggests the formation of a joint military council during a transitional phase, whose duration would be agreed on.

Asharq Al-Awsat received a copy of the proposal, which explains that the council would be formed of three parties. The first are retired senior officers who served under late president Hafez Assad. The second are officers who are still in service and the third are officers who have defected from the regime but who did not become involved in armed factions.

Implementation of resolution 2254, continued the document, would take place in ten steps, including restructuring the military and enabling it to eliminate terrorism, dismantling all armed groups, collecting all weapons, restoring the authority of the state throughout Syria, naming an interim government that boasts full executive authorities as stipulated in the 2012 constitution, and calling for an internal national dialogue.

The dialogue would produce a founding association that would be tasked with drafting a new constitution, said the document. The proposal also calls for the release of detainees, allowing the return of refugees to their homes and holding international contacts over reconstruction.

It also demands the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria. Russia alone would keep its troops, who would work with the military council and interim government to restore stability, ensure the implementation of resolution 2254, form a reconciliation body and safeguard the constitutional referendum process and parliamentary and presidential elections.

The “legal reference” for the above would either be the 2012 constitution or a temporary constitutional declaration derived from the 2015 Vienna understandings.

Media test
Meanwhile, opposition journalist Yaser Badawi called for the formation of a military council through an agreement between the “influential” players in Syria, starting with Russia.

In an article published by Russia’s Nezavisimaya Gazeta, he said the council should include current serving officers and defected ones, who have not taken part in hostilities. The council would be responsible for eliminating terrorism, protecting Syria and its people and collecting all weapons.

Opposition figures interpreted Russia’s publication of his article as a sign that it was officially prepared to discuss this idea, despite alleged protests by Syria’s ambassador to Moscow.

Badawi cited statements from Arab tribes, rights activists and politicians, demanding the formation of a military council headed by General Manaf Tlass, son of late Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass.

In contrast to the other proposal on a joint military council, Badawi said his proposed council would stop the upcoming “fraudulent” presidential elections.

Both suggestions agree that Russia can play a “decisive” role in forming the military council, restructuring the military and supplying it with means to fight terrorism, and restore calm in the country.

Opposition figures revealed that some 1,100 defected officers, including some residing in Turkey and with ties in northern Syria, have expressed their support for Badawi’s proposal.

Commander of the 100,000-strong Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Mazloum Abdi had told Asharq Al-Awsat last week that he does not oppose joining a military council that does not take on a nationalist, religious or sectarian identity.

He stressed that the council should “believe in defending the nation and not be subject to foreign agendas.”

Common ground
Opposition, government and foreign circles, including Russia, are in agreement on the need to “preserve state institutions”. Differences have emerged over the extent of “reforms” and the “restructuring” of the military and security agencies.

Moscow had previously tested the idea of forming a military council comprised of 40 officers. It had informed the opposition that this proposal still stands.

Meanwhile, a western official said the Russian military is “historically enamored” with the idea of military rule and testing the idea of a military council in an allied country, even if the circumstances in Syria have changed a lot in recent years.

Evidence of Russia’s military leanings are its support for the formation of the fifth armored division in southern Syria. Its Hmeimin military base also coordinates its operations with the Syrian army and patrols with the SDF in regions east of the Euphrates River.



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.