RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

Offering Muslim Brotherhood's moderate leaders political positions

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/politics/16493-egypts-coup-regime-tries-to-reconcile-with-the-muslim-brotherhood

Key points:

Informed sources within the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the Egyptian regime has sought ways and means to reconcile with the movement ever since the coup in July 2013. The Brotherhood, it is said, has rejected all such overtures.

Speaking to Arabi21, the sources explained that the discussions that took place between regime officials and some Brotherhood leaders, at times directly and on other occasions via mediators, focused on the acquiescence of the movement and its acceptance of the coup as a fact. In exchange, prisoners would be released and Brotherhood officials could play a political role in Egypt.

The regime has, since the coup, been keen to keep a number of Brotherhood leaders known to be moderate and inclined towards negotiating out of prison in the hope of reaching a political solution to the crisis. These leaders included Doctors Muhammad Ali Bishr, Amr Darraj and Yassir Ali.

With the Brotherhood refusing to move, the regime started to harass these three senior members of the movement to put pressure on it to make concessions. Consequently, Yassir Ali was detained and Darraj was threatened with detention, prompting him to leave Egypt and live in exile; he continues to play a more open and liberated political role. When the movement insisted on taking part in the 28 November rallies, which were called for by the Salafi Front, the regime detained Bishr.

The regime has released a number of Brotherhood leaders who are known for their moderation. The first to be released was former MP Ali Fatehilbab, the head of the parliamentary bloc of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) within the Shura Council. Upon his release in April last year, he announced an initiative for reconciliation between the Brotherhood and the government. However, this was rejected widely within the movement to such an extent that Fatehilbab was attacked and accused of letting it down.

This was followed in August 2014 by the release of Dr Hilmi Al-Jazzar, the Secretary General of the FJP in Giza, on medical grounds. This was a surprising move by a regime which quite deliberately allows scores of very sick prisoners to die in detention due to the lack of adequate medical care.

The release of Al-Jazzar provoked speculation that he might play a role in reconciling the Brotherhood with the government. Yet, this too was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the movement's members, especially the youth. Once again, the potential go-between was attacked and warned against compromising the rights of the martyrs. Al-Jazzar made a public statement in which he affirmed clearly, according to Brotherhood sources, that he refused to play any political role at this stage. He insisted that he was not authorised to speak in the name of the movement and has since disappeared from the political scene.

An important role for Yassir Ali

The third Brotherhood leader to be released was the aforementioned Dr Yassir Ali, the former spokesman for President Mohamed Morsi. Ali was released suddenly in November last year after spending 11 months in prison. Speculation was rife about a possible reconciliation role for him.

The Brotherhood sources have explained that Ali was detained in early 2014 after a meeting with the Saudi ambassador in Cairo during which he was handed a proposal for reconciliation between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the Saudi proposal the regime would release the detainees and allow the movement back into political life in exchange for giving up the demand for Morsi to return. Apparently, Ali was detained only hours after the meeting because it took place without the prior knowledge of the regime.

With the removal of both Darraj and Bishr from the scene, the regime focused on Ali as a contact within the Brotherhood. It is alleged that there have been several meetings between him and security officials and political mediators.

The first was several weeks ago when Ali was invited to attend the wedding of a relative of an army general. He was told that a number of Military Council members would be there and that they would like to speak to him about the current situation. However, following consultation with the Brotherhood leadership, he turned the invitation down.

Afterwards, Ali received an explicit invitation to meet the Director of National Security, Brigadier General Khalid Tharwat, to discuss the possibility of a period of calm in exchange for releasing the detainees. When Ali reiterated the refusal of the movement to make any concessions, he was taken aback by the Minister of Interior, who stormed into the meeting. It was clear that the minister had been eavesdropping. He told Ali that the regime wanted to resolve the crisis and reach a solution that would be acceptable to both sides. However, Ali stressed that he was unable to persuade the Brotherhood, whether members or leaders, of giving up on the demands for which thousands had paid with their lives. The minister's face changed colour and he threatened Ali with further detention. "Don't leave Cairo or else you will be detained and thrown in jail," he is alleged to have warned.

The last attempt to reach an agreement over a period of calm was made three weeks ago when Muhammad Hasanayn Haykal contacted Yassir Ali for a meeting. The veteran journalist and writer asked Ali to convince the Brotherhood to end the demonstrations and join the political process; he pledged that the regime would, in exchange, open a new chapter with the movement.

Once again, Ali stressed that continuing the revolution and keeping the rallies going was no longer the decision of the Brotherhood alone. He added that it was not even the decision of the Alliance for Supporting Legitimacy, but had become something that the people of Egypt must decide.

Calm prior to the economic conference

The sources have said that one of the reasons for the intransigence of the Brotherhood is the objection by the group to the manner in which the regime decides who it wants to deal with. It selects certain individuals who it feels should represent the movement and imposes this choice on the group instead of dealing with whoever the Brotherhood itself has decided is fit for that purpose.

They also noted that Al-Sisi is trying by all means to bring about a measure of calm across the country prior to the economic conference that is to be held in Sharm Al-Sheikh in March. This is a last resort to try to rescue the failing Egyptian economy, especially now that aid from the Gulf has become "extremely meagre".

Last week a court cleared Dr Yassir Ali of the charge of hiding information about former Prime Minister Dr Hisham Qandil and annulled a previous six-month jail sentence.

However, although the sources confirmed the release of President Morsi's advisor, Khalid Al-Qazzaz, last week, they stress that this has nothing to do with the reconciliation issue. They explained that Al-Qazzaz, who had been in detention since July 2013, was released as a result of diplomatic pressure from the Canadian embassy. Al-Qazzaz is expected to leave for Canada soon to join his family there.