The UN on Monday dispatched 59 trucks of humanitarian aid to the Syrian province of Idlib. The area that has witnessed heavy fighting since last December has been calm in recent weeks, allowing the humanitarian aid to be delivered and 73,000 people who fled to the Turkish border to return. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a factor in ensuring that the truce agreed between Russia and Turkey on March 5 has held. Both the Russians and the Turks do not want to put their soldiers at risk of being infected, so troop movements have been restricted. The Moscow-Ankara agreement also aimed to create a safe zone along the M4 highway, but such areas have seen breaches by the warring parties. The cease-fire needs to be long-lasting in order to allow the people who have fled the violence to relocate and avoid them suffering multiple rounds of displacement. Previous Syrian cease-fires have been more of a series of short breaks before all parties resume another round of hostilities. This illustrates the need for a third party to be present. The UN is a neutral and credible party that has deployed peacekeeping missions around the world and maintained stability in critical areas. For example, Southern Lebanon has, for the past 14 years, not witnessed any clashes between Hezbollah and Israel because of the presence of UN forces. The international community should capitalize on the demilitarized zones agreed between the Russians and the Turks to create a development area where internally displaced people can relocate. There is no more room for additional refugees: Turkey hosts 3.5 million Syrian refugees and can’t take anymore; Lebanon is being crushed under the weight of its own problems; and Europe has closed its borders. In fact, COVID-19 makes it almost impossible for any country to accept refugees. This highlights the crucial importance of having safe zones inside of Syria itself. However, a safe zone needs to have connectivity, access to basic services, and be able to create jobs. The zones need to be sustainable, as there is no sign of an imminent political settlement between the opposition and the regime that would bring enduring peace and stability. The constitutional committee is not making any substantial progress and Bashar Assad is not showing any changes in his behavior that could bring an end to the conflict. The UN failed to convince the different stakeholders to lay down their arms entirely, but it might be able to do that in certain areas in Syria. Though Assad is unwilling to make any concessions to end the conflict, countries like Turkey and Russia might agree to compromise to minimize their losses, meaning they may be receptive to the idea of deconfliction zones. Also, such zones would transfer some of the weight of the conflict that those countries are carrying to the UN. Prior to the UN taking over, Turkey and Russia should clear the areas of armed factions. Security should be maintained by a special UN peacekeeping mission. Unlike the presence in Lebanon, which is an observer mission, the one in Idlib should have the authority to protect civilians and to search and inspect private property to ensure the rule of law and security. In order to ensure neutrality, it is important that the countries that donate troops to the force are not involved in the conflict, i.e., they don’t have boots on the ground. It is also important that they do not have direct interests in Syria. This way, people can relocate to such zones without fearing arbitrary detention. This concept is a type of chartered city under the jurisdiction of the UN. Honduras, for example, has delegated the jurisdiction of a large swath of land in the north of the country to a private entity to create a development zone that will generate prosperity. In the case of Syria, given the fluidity of the situation and the fact there is no formal state structure that could enter into contracts with a third party, the UN represents the most eligible organization to maintain such a zone and contract relevant stakeholders. These areas could then be transferred to the Syrian state once a final political settlement that is acceptable to the international community is reached. Each zone would be a compounded project held between the UN, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector and civil society organizations. The de-escalation zones could prompt a series of local truces that might later lead to a comprehensive peace. The UN’s peacekeeping forces would be responsible for recruiting and managing locals for policing activities. The administration of these areas would be carried out jointly by the elected local councils and appointed personnel. Volunteer countries — which, to repeat, do not have a military presence in Syria, do not support any armed factions and hence are considered neutral — can offer help through area by area agreements. For example, the state of Kuwait could nominate Kuwait City to help with the administration of Syria’s Al-Atarib. The sister city could appoint members to jointly run the safe zone with the elected city council. The de-escalation zones could prompt a series of local truces that might later lead to a comprehensive peace. Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib In such zones, the UN should work with donor organizations as well with civil society and with vetted Syrian businesspeople to create an economic life and generate jobs. Reconstruction within the borders of these areas could provide a viable economic zone for Syrian people without breaking the UN principle of no reconstruction before having a political transition. Hopefully, by increasing the number and scope of the deconfliction zones in Syria, the international community will limit the space for conflict. It would also offer vital space for the Syrians fleeing violence to thrive. Most importantly, the zones would offer a graceful exit for the different warring parties that are worn out by the conflict. Having a deconfliction zone in Idlib run by the UN would save face for both Turkey and Russia, allowing them to avoid a confrontation. This would help solve one problem in this long and complicated conflict. Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view