Why Amman?

By Jumana Ghunaimat

تم نشره في Mon 17 July / Jul 2017. 12:00 AM
  • Jumana Ghunaimat

It wasn’t a coincidence that the Amman Accord to found a ceasefire in the South-Western Syrian territories had worked.

Quite contrarily, there was an array of objective factors pillared by objective reasoning, which has helped the parties involved push forward the arrangements.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about other parts of Syria, which were supposed to see the establishment of low-tension zones too.

One of these factors, which pillared the success of the Accord, is the affiliations with the opposition faction in the Syrian South-West, whom have been coordinating with Jordan for years.

Early into the Syrian crisis, Jordan devised a Cushions strategy, which integrated the opposition factions there.

Jordan trained and rehabilitated some of them, and worked closely with them for the main purpose of securing the borders.

Additionally, the Kingdom’s steady and steadfast position, in regards to our approach to foreign relations and our role in the Syrian situation, has been equally instrumental.

Through the years of Syria’s bloody conflict, Jordan’s stance was clear and solid; political resolution.

The Kingdom prioritised the suspension of violence, the preservation of Syria’s unity, and the indispensability of the political solution.

In the meantime, Jordan maintained an open line of communication and coordination with the US on the topic of training moderate opposition factions, on these terms.

Meanwhile, Jordan’s proximity to the two major players in the Syrian conflict, Russia and the US, has also reinforced the arrival at this outcome.

In other words, every diplomatic and political effort in foreign relations, led by King Abdullah II, has helped house a suitable setting to support the ceasefire.

The result, without fail, was the formalisation of tripartite accord on the South-Western regions of Syria.

Practically speaking, the ceasefire went into effect the moment the Accord was announced.

Naturally, the agreement included Syrian government forces and affiliated militias, as well as armed Syrian rebel forces.

Likewise, as a result of the agreement, Iran’s sectarian militias were also removed to a safe distance from the borderline with Jordan.

Nonetheless, negotiations between the three parties have not been suspended, and work is still underway to attain much more than just a borderline ceasefire.

Aspirations are that an agreement may be struck to turn down the violence in the whole of the Syrian south.

This would put an end to the hostility there and allow the passage of humanitarian aid.

Above all else, it is vital for Jordan’s own interest that stability is maintained in the border areas in Syria.

It is crucial that threat is minimised.

Moreover, the successful maintained of the ceasefire in these areas could pave for the safe return of so many refugees.

This, of course, is of paramount interest to Jordan.

As for those who criticise the ceasefire, claiming it is aimed at the perpetuation of division and the destruction of all hopes for unity in Syria, I say: really?!

I highly doubt that the ongoing bloodshed in Syria is ever going to help reunite Syria.

Far from it, in fact, if anything, the war may have already done it.

Still, the unity of Syria is not for us to decide. The Syrians will, after the war is ended, decide for themselves the future of their country.

Besides, division, according to the standing geopolitical distribution of control, in Syria, is no longer an option.

In fact, the very core of highlight of the upcoming stage has changed.

Assad’s removal is no longer a priority; stopping the war, however, is.

With diplomacy and foreign relations, Jordan was able to devise and realise what many others could not.

In spite of some Arab and foreign countries’ refusal to admit to Jordan’s instrumental, geopolitical role, the Kingdom’s resourcefulness and farsightedness have proven quite invaluable.

This article is an edited translation of the Arabic version, published by AlGhad.

Comment