Research Summary Report: Local Truces and Ceasefires

Integrity’s research highlights that the truces agreed in several locations across Syria in the early months of 2014 do not represent the localised beginnings of a peacebuilding process. These agreements—and the negotiation and implementation processes that delivered them—were not built upon good practice and were significantly undermined by a lack of political will for peace from the outset. For opposition stakeholders, the truce agreements were a reaction to extreme levels of civilian suffering and a military capacity weakened by lengthy, government-enforced sieges. In all areas researched, Integrity’s respondents reported high levels of starvation, with particularly severe levels of malnutrition in the cases of Yarmouk and Mu'adamiyyat al-Sham. Evidence suggests that these truces were part of a government strategy to retake besieged areas and force opposition surrender through the exploitation of dire humanitarian needs. The forced return of IDPs by the government to besieged areas such as in Barzeh or the confiscation of aid underscores this exploitation. The government’s presentation of these truces as evidence of national reconciliation efforts also appears designed to bolster resistance to third party involvement in the conflict or in its mediation. Research further demonstrates that truce terms were vague, contested or verbal only; were not signed by both parties; and generally did not specify coordination and implementation modalities or agreed roles and responsibilities for stakeholders. As a result, truces were prone to abuse and violations in the form of attacks by government paramilitary forces such as the National Defence Force (NDF) and the confiscation or theft of humanitarian aid agreed upon in negotiations. The truces resulted in only a minimal and temporary improvement of the humanitarian situation in affected communities. Evidence suggests that food aid delivered was almost always significantly insufficient for civilian needs and that very little medical aid reached besieged areas. Integrity’s research suggests that as a result of this limited humanitarian impact, the difficult negotiation processes and multiple term violations, the truces appear to have increased levels of mistrust and uncertainty among parties and have served to further entrench already-polarised positions. In addition, actions on both sides point to a marked absence of political will for meaningful peace negotiations. Without a significant change in the level of this political will, Integrity’s research suggests that these truces are highly unlikely to be sustainable or able to contribute to the beginnings of a peace process.
The resource is available in Arabic, following this link.