Operation Ostrava: Month 14, Week 1, Day 1.

If you've read my Twitter page you'd know that I originally attempted to post the following at around 15:35 today (8/4/12) but my home Internet connection was blocked. Obviously it's fixed now (16:10).

As part of my efforts to archive some of my more important posts on 100badones.blogspot.com I've backdated the Syria timescale back to March 15th 2011. - the first Syrian "Day of Rage." Regardless of how you date it though all of the most important events surrounding Syria this week took place on Thursday (5/4/11). Firstly a team of Norwegian military observers arrived in Syria under a United Nations (UN) mandate. Their purpose is to provide the military expertise needed to successfully monitor the technical aspects of the conflict between Syrian forces and the Saudi Irregular Army (SIA). I don't think there's any special significance in the mission being Norwegian led. It's just that while they're not keen on wars when it comes to peacekeeping missions Norway are normally the first to volunteer and are not afraid of putting their people in harms way in doing so.

Also on Thursday the Special Envoy Kofi Annan formally presented the details of the proposed ceasefire to a closed session on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in New York. The UNSC formally endorsed the plan so Annan went on to present the main details of the ceasefire to an open session of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in Geneva via videolink. Here he announced that Syrian forces will ceasefire at at 06:00 local (03:00GMT) on Tuesday April 10th 2012 (10/4/12). However the continuation of that ceasefire is dependent on the SIA also ceasing fire within 48 hours or 06:00/03:00GMT on Thursday April 12th 2012 (12/4/12).

While we all nervously wait to see what happens when the Tuesday deadline comes into force it seems like an opportune moment to look at exactly what has been agreed. According to the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) and certain western nations by that date the Syrian government has agreed to wholly implement all aspects of point 2 of S/PRST/2012/6 which reads as follows;

"[the Syrian authorities] commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country. To this end, the Syrian Government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres. As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian Government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism. Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with and effective United Nations supervision mechanism;"

However by their inclusion of the caveat that their ceasefire is dependent on the SIA following suit within 48 hours it is quite clear that the Syrian government has not agreed to wholly implement point 2 of S/PRST/2012/6 in it's current form. Instead they've agreed to implement the first sentence; "[the Syrian authorities] commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently and effective United Nations cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country."

The Syrian government has stopped short of agreeing to immediately pull back all military concentrations in and around population centres for the simple reason that logistically moving that many troops, tanks and artillery pieces takes weeks or months rather then hours or days. So if the Syrian government were to pullback all their military assets and the SIA continue to fight all that would happen is that the Syrian forces would be placed at a significant tactical disadvantage while the fighting continues. This is of course exactly what nations like Britain and Saudi Arabia who are funding Kofi Annan's mission want to achieve through point 2 of S/PRST/2012/6.

Today (8/4/12) the Syrian government have clarified their position by requesting a formal, written undertaking from the SIA that they too will ceasefire before any military pullback begins. Obviously in the west this is being presented as evidence that the Syrian government are trying to wriggle out of the ceasefire. Nothing could be further from the truth because it's actually the Syrian government trying to achieve the exact opposite. By making it perfectly clear what is expected of the SIA before the ceasefire takes effect the Syrian government is trying to give the ceasefire it's best chance of success. This approach from the Syrian government appears to be working because already today the SIA has changed it's position from refusing to give such an undertaking to promising that they too will ceasefire on 10/4/12. However if the Syrian government wanted the ceasefire to collapse they would instead be trying to trick the SIA into continuing to fight. That way the Syrian government could ceasefire to two days before simply turning round to the UN and saying; "We tried to make peace but they just continued to attack us. So we need to pound them into the ground to protect ourselves."