Day: February 24, 2012
Kofi time
Huffington Post has just published my latest on Syria:
With Kofi Annan chosen to be the joint UN/Arab League Special Envoy and today’s Friends of Syria meeting in Tunis, the stage is set for a more serious diplomatic effort to bring the Syrian crisis to a close. Kofi’s marching orders include:
The Special Envoy will provide good offices aimed at bringing an end to all violence and human rights violations, and promoting a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis.The Special Envoy will be guided in this endeavor by the provisions of the General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/253 and the relevant resolutions of the League of Arab States. He will consult broadly and engage with all relevant interlocutors within and outside Syria in order to end the violence and the humanitarian crisis, and facilitate a peaceful Syrian-led and inclusive political solution that meets the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people through a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition.
This broad mandate, which the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have approved, implicitly points in the direction of the Arab League plan that Russia and China previously vetoed, even if it does not explicitly mention the need for Bashar al-Assad to step aside. The ambiguity is intended to hide the differences of view on the UNSC, but clearly no political solution can meet the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people with Bashar still in office.
Kofi will surely meet with Bashar al-Assad. The question is whether he will be able to tell him that the P5 want him out. Colum Lynch notes that in his last trouble-shooting effort Kofi arranged for power-sharing in Kenya. Bashar has spilled far too much blood in Syria for the opposition to accept sharing power with him. The Russians should by now be wondering whether their best bet for holding on to port access and arms sales in Syria is Bashar. Once they decide differently, Kofi will have the support he needs for defenestration.
Anne-Marie Slaughter today in the New York Times calls for “no-kill” zones established by the Free Syria Army (FSA) near Syria’s borders with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. This would require a major effort to arm the FSA and provide it with special forces advisors. The notion that this can be done “to protect all Syrians regardless of creed, ethnicity or political allegiance” without precipitating the chaotic ethnic and sectarian civil war that Anne-Marie herself recognizes as the worst outcome is unrealistic. And doing it without taking down Syria’s air defenses would condemn the effort to failure.
Only the U.S. can quickly and effectively destroy Syria’s Russian-supplied air defense and severely damage his artillery, which is bombarding his opponents. At yesterday’s Syria event at the Center for National Policy, colleagues evoked the image of President Clinton reacting to the shelling of Sarajevo, suggesting that President Obama might do likewise.
We too readily forget that Clinton waited three and half years — until Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole started taking him to task for not carrying out his campaign promise to bomb the Serbs — before initiating the military action that ended the war in Bosnia. I doubt even a Republican candidate bemoaning what is happening in Syria would get the White House to drop other priorities in favor of another Middle East war.
The Syrian opposition doesn’t have years, or even months. It needs protection quickly. The best bet is a vigorous diplomatic effort by Kofi Annan.
Today in Tunis the Friends of Syria called for a ceasefire, humanitarian relief to the cities under attack, deployment of UN peacekeepers and the beginning of a dialogue process aimed at a political settlement. They also named the Syrian National Council “a” legitimate representative of the Syrian people and promised further sanctions and diplomatic isolation of Damascus. They did not call for arming of the opposition, which has been left up to individual states. The Saudis made it clear they thought it a good idea (and they will presumably do it).
Few believe Bashar al-Assad will cave. I won’t be surprised if he eventually does, though I’m not prepared to predict when. His army and other security forces are exhausted and won’t want to enter the cities they have been shelling from afar. If Bashar can get the international community to accept responsibility for feeding the inhabitants and maybe even maintaining law and order, he may count himself lucky. His security forces could then lick their wounds and prepare to fight another day, while blaming the internationals for anything that goes wrong.
Syria is showing us the limits of military force. It is a blunt tool that in this instance is likely to bring about the civil war that we should most want to avoid. Diplomacy won’t be pretty. It will require negotiations with Bashar al-Assad and acceptance of compromises that are odious. But it is our best bet for the moment. Kofi time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia, Kosovo and 1244
1244 is the UN Security Council resolution that ended the NATO/Yugoslavia war over Kosovo in 1999. Today in Brussels, Pristina and Belgrade agreed that Kosovo would be represented internationally as Kosovo, with a footnote referencing both UNSC resolution 1244 and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision that found no prohibition (in 1244 or anywhere else) on its declaration of independence.
Belgrade is anxious to portray this as a victory. B92 quotes President Tadic:
Kosovo will not be presented in regional fora and institutions as an independent country, but in line with UN Resolution 1244 on Kosovo and the opinion of the International Court of Justice.
He is entitled to his interpretation of the agreement, but mine is different. Let me explain.
Belgrade has long been anxious to drag 1244 into all discussions of Kosovo because it makes reference in the preamble to Yugoslav sovereignty. But preambular language is not legally binding and the substantive text of the resolution clearly foresees a political process to decide Kosovo’s status. It is the claim of those states that have recognized Kosovo as independent and sovereign that the Marti Ahtisaari-led negotiations, in which Russia and Serbia participated fully, constituted that political process. The terms of 1244 have therefore been fulfilled, even if no new UNSC resolution has passed. Last year’s ICJ opinion advised that Kosovo’s declaration of independence breached no international law, confirming that 1244 does not prevent Kosovo from sovereignty and independence, despite the preambular reference to Yugoslav sovereignty.
So I see no loss to Kosovo in a footnote requiring reference to 1244. To the contrary, it seems to me Kosovo’s right to a political process that would determine final status is rooted in 1244–that is what makes Kosovo different from all those other provinces around the world that would like independence. Coupled with the ICJ decision, the footnote should be read as a clear and unequivocal statement that Kosovo is entitled to seek recognition as a sovereign and independent state.
It now has that recognition from more than 85 other sovereign and independent states, which is more than have bilaterally recognized many other states on earth. Bilateral recognitions generally stop once a state is a member of the United Nations. That is the next hurdle for Kosovo. It needs membership in the UN General Assembly, which requires a positive recommendation by the Security Council.
So far, Russia has put its veto at the disposal of Serbia to prevent Kosovo’s UN membership. But I’ve got to wonder out loud how long that will last. Russia’s recognition of Abhazia and South Ossetia deprives its stance of any moral rectitude. Once Kosovo is accepted in Balkans circles, including by the five non-recognizing European Union states, as Kosovo* {that * is meant to represent the footnote referencing two things that together confirm Kosovo’s right to seek international recognition}, why would Moscow continue to block membership under the same formula in the UN General Assembly?
There is another aspect to this agreement that is positive for Pristina. It opens the door to a “contractual” relationship between Kosovo* and the EU, one that should certainly include an agreement on trade, visas and other key items. Pristina has good reason to celebrate, even if no one can enjoy having their state identity footnoted.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
From rebellion to revolution
The Irmgard Coninx Stiftung at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung is circulating this notice for scholars, activists and journalists:
16th Berlin Roundtables on Transnationality, October 17 – 20, 2012
From Rebellion to Revolution: Dynamics of Political Change Submission deadline is June 30, 2012.
Based on an international essay competition, we will invite approximately 45 applicants to discuss their research, concerns and agendas with peers and prominent scholars in Berlin. The competition is open to students and scholars (max. up to 5 years after Ph.D.), journalists and activists interested in revolutionary processes (e.g. government agencies, NGOs).
The Irmgard Coninx Foundation will cover travel to and accommodation in Berlin.
Conference papers can address but are not limited to the following topics:
– dynamics of political/system change
– democratization and human rights in revolutionary processes
– violence
– mass mobilization
– (new) media and revolution today
– role of elites and elite competition/coalitions
– role of military and police forces
– economic and political reasons for rebellion and their course
– cultural and religious factors influencing revolutions
– demographic and social background of revolutions
– foreign military and humanitarian intervention
– revolution/rebellion as analytical and normative concept
Discussions will take place in three workshops chaired by Wolfgang Merkel (Humbold-Universität zu Berlin/WZB), Christoph Stefes (University of Colorado Denver/WZB), Jeff Goodwin (New York University) and Sonja Hegasy (Zentrum Moderner Orient).
The conference will be accompanied by evening lectures by Nancy Fraser (The New School for Social Research) and Amr Hamzawy (requested, University of Cairo/Freedom Egypt Party).
Conference participants are eligible to apply for one of up to three three-month fellowships to be used for research in Berlin at the WZB.
For further information on the conference and the background paper:
http://www.irmgard-coninx-stiftung.de/revolutions.html
RSS - Posts
