A new Syria?

What would a peace agreement in Syria look like? How can the involved parties come up with a deal that would satisfy them all?

by Jason Shvili, ISRAEL HAYOM

In the last few weeks, the war in Syria has transformed into a full-blown international military conflict with Syria now effectively at war with Turkey, despite a ceasefire that was announced on Thursday.

Syrian and Turkish forces have exchanged fire with each other, leading to casualties on both sides. Meanwhile, the Russians continue to give military support to Syrian President Bashar Assad, using its air force to bomb the last rebel stronghold of Idlib.

At the same time, Turkey’s air force and ground troops support the rebels in trying to withstand Assad’s military offensive in Idlib.

Also of great importance is Iran’s ongoing efforts to entrench itself inside Syrian territory and Israel’s efforts to prevent this entrenchment from happening. In the midst of all this is a reignited refugee crisis as civilians try to escape the carnage in Idlib and Turkey opens the floodgates for these refugees, allowing them to attempt to reach Europe.

The direct involvement of the Turkish military in Syria’s civil war represents a major escalation in the conflict. One cannot help but ask if Turkey and Russia will come into direct conflict with each other, which would, of course, be disastrous for the Middle East and world order as a whole.

Now more than ever, a solution is needed to resolve the Syrian quagmire. But what would a peace agreement in Syria look like? How can the involved parties come up with an agreement that would satisfy them all?

A solution to the ongoing war in Syria would most likely involve a partition of the country. In fact, a partition of Syria would be very appropriate even without the presence of an armed conflict as the country was never created by the will of the people, and instead, has always been a legacy of colonialism, specifically the Sykes-Picot Agreement between the British and French in the aftermath of World War I, which saw the two great powers divide the Middle East between themselves without regard for the aspirations of the local population.

Such a partition would have to be one that is in the interests of all parties to the conflict. In other words, it would have to satisfy the needs of Assad, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel, not to mention the Syrian people, who have borne the brunt of the bloody conflict.

Hence, Russia and Iran would require an arrangement that keeps Assad in power and maintains the Russian naval base on the Syrian coast. Assad needs a deal that will secure his continuing dictatorship; Turkey needs to maintain security on its southern border, and Israel needs to prevent Iran from creating a new base in Syria from which to attack the Jewish state.

In order to accomplish all of these things, I would suggest that the Syrian coastal region of Latakia be split off from the rest of the country to form a separate, independent state in which Assad is the ruler. This makes perfect sense since the bulk of the Syrian dictator’s support comes from the Alawite Muslim sect of which he is a member and which forms a majority in the Latakia region. Creating an independent state in Latakia would allow Assad to continue his dictatorship, albeit over a smaller territory, while the Russians would be able to keep their naval base there.

The rest of Syria would be able to determine its own future, free from Assad and his allies. The best course of action for the Syrian people would be to create a federal democracy with Jabal Druze, Damascus, Aleppo and the mainly Kurdish extreme northeast of the country as autonomous provinces.

As part of the peace agreement, it would be stipulated that Iran could not base its forces in the new federal republic of Syria and that the country would not become a base from which the Kurds could attack Turkey or assist the Kurdish rebels therein. Thus, the Syrian people would gain the freedom they deserve to create a new, democratic country and the security needs of Israel and Turkey would be satisfied.

Unfortunately, the international community generally frowns upon potential resolutions to conflicts that involve breaking up countries, because the global trend is to maintain current borders, regardless of how ridiculous and unjust those borders are.

Hence, having Syria partitioned as part of a peace agreement may not even be considered by the powers concerned. The wold’s leaders, particularly the ones who have a stake in the resolution of the Syrian conflict, need to realize that bringing an end to civil wars often requires changing the borders that created the conditions for such wars in the first place.<
><
>