Damascus ‘Thwarts’ Settlement as it Eyes Reconstruction

UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
TT
20

Damascus ‘Thwarts’ Settlement as it Eyes Reconstruction

UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)
UN special envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen holds a press conference at the United Nations Offices in Geneva. (AFP)

Damascus is set to host in the coming hours United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Martin Griffiths.

UN special envoy, Geir Pedersen, meanwhile, is being made to wait for an invitation to visit the Syrian capital as it mulls its priorities for the coming phase. Damascus will welcome international aid and push forward the implementation of the UN resolution on cross-border aid with its new phrasing. The resolution was extended in early July.

Damascus is setting its sights on the reconstruction and relief funds, while delaying negotiations over a political settlement and the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva related to the constitutional committee.

In July, the United States and Russia reached a “historic settlement” that was extension of the cross-border aid resolution. Washington was forced to make concessions over the duration of the resolution and the finer details an accept Moscow’s introduction of new phrasing to the resolution.

The resolution now speaks of “early recovery”. The resolution reads: “The Security Council welcomes all efforts and initiatives to broaden the humanitarian activities in Syria, including water, sanitation, health, education, and shelter early recovery projects, undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other organizations, and calls upon other international humanitarian agencies and relevant parties to support them.”

“The Security Council requests the Secretary-General to brief the Council monthly and (…) to include in his reports overall trends in United Nations cross-line operations, in particular on the implementation of the above mentioned activities on improving all modalities of humanitarian deliveries inside Syria and early recovery projects, and detailed information on the humanitarian assistance delivered through United Nations humanitarian cross-border operations, including the distribution mechanism, the number of beneficiaries, operating partners, locations of aid deliveries at district-level and the volume and nature of items delivered.”

Griffiths’ meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad in the coming hours will be an opportunity for Damascus to offer its interpretation of the resolution and its priorities in regards to “cross-line” operations between the three zones of influence inside Syria and the contributions to the “early recovery projects” that take the country closer to reconstructions.

Damascus will likely also pressure Griffiths to take a clearer position on the “unilateral” western sanctions and Ankara’s closure of a water pumping station east of the Euphrates River.

Damascus’ stances are pushing it closer from those of Moscow and Tehran that stand in contrast to Washington and the West that are prioritizing cross-border aid. The US and western countries view the aid as a matter of life or death and have accused Damascus of obstructing deliveries of aid to northeastern regions that are held by Washington’s allies.

Furthermore, western countries refuse to take part in any reconstruction project in Syria before making sure that irreversible progress is achieved in the political process. This position implicitly agrees that sanctions, isolation and pledges to contribute in reconstruction are “means to pressure” Damascus to make internal and geopolitical concessions.

The clash in positions between Damascus and the West over aid will not extend to the political arena as the government continues to refuse to welcome Pedersen despite Russia’s intervention to facilitate such a visit.

Damascus is “angry” with the envoy for helping mediate a meeting between Daraa representatives and his issuing of a statement expressing his concern over the deteriorating situation there. It is also upset with the way negotiations have been held with the head of the government delegation to the constitutional committee talks in Geneva. The negotiations have focused on the agreement on the working mechanism of the committee and working paper that the envoy had presented at the beginning of the year.

Pedersen, meanwhile, wants to head to Damascus to “negotiate” over the UN constitutional mechanism. In April, he had sent a document to government delegation head, Ahmed al-Kuzbari, and opposition “negotiations committee” delegation head, Hadi al-Bahra, tackling the steps to kick off the committee’s work in drafting the constitution. Bahra agreed to the document despite his reservations, while Kuzbari had instead proposed discussing the constitution rather than draft it.

President Bashar Assad had made his position clear over the drafting of the constitution during his swearing in ceremony in July. He said: “You have proven once again the unity of the battle of the constitution and nation. You have proven that the constitution is a priority that is not open to debate or compromise.”

He said that efforts to draft the new constitution aim to put the country “at the mercy of foreign forces”, citing “Turkish agents” at the committee talks – a reference to the opposition negotiations committee delegation.

Moscow will be pleased with Damascus’ presentation to Griffiths of its interpretation of the aid resolution extension.

Sights are now set on Moscow to act to persuade Damascus to welcome Pedersen, who had recently met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Russia. Perhaps he would meet with Miqdad on the sidelines on the UN General Assembly in New York in September.



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.