Day: May 18, 2012
Syria: what now?
This is a piece of mine Reuters published this afternoon under the headline “Here’s how to handle Syria”:
Bashar al-Assad continues his war on the Syrian opposition, despite the presence of United Nations observers. His efforts have generated extremist reactions, including major bombings. The Syrian opposition continues to fragment, even as protesters manage to mount peaceful demonstrations in many parts of the country. The conflict is increasingly sectarian in character and has overflowed to Lebanon’s Tripoli.
There is no alternative in sight to the existing Security Council resolutions. Syria is not on the NATO summit agenda this weekend in Chicago. The Americans continue to need the Russians “on side” for nuclear talks with Iran that resume next week in Baghdad. Unilateral American action on Syria is not in the cards. Europe is preoccupied with its own financial crisis and is unable to act without American help. Qatari and Saudi weapons entering Syria are likely to increase violence and worsen sectarian tensions.
So what is to be done? Here are some ideas for the Obama administration:
- Lend wholehearted support to the Annan plan, which the United States has been badmouthing ever since the Security Council passed Resolution 2043 on Apr. 21.
- Talk with Moscow about ensuring that Russian vital interests in Syria, port access and arms sales, are protected once Bashar al-Assad is gone. The United States no longer needs to block Moscow’s access to a Mediterranean port, as it did during the Cold War. Russian arms sales to Syria are a small price to pay to bring down a regime that links Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
- Deploy civilian observers – including Americans – to Syria. The Security Council has already authorized a civilian component to the U.N. Supervisory Mission in Syria (UNSMIS). It would be too much to expect Syria to accept U.S. military observers, and the U.S. does not send its soldiers and Marines into harm’s way unarmed, as the UNSMIS observers are. But we have had good results with unarmed civilian observers in the Kosovo Verification Mission before the NATO-Yugoslavia war, when the lead observer spoke truth to power about a civilian massacre.
- Stop talk about arming the opposition. It isn’t what we should be doing or encouraging because of the likelihood it will prolong sectarian conflict; we can’t control where the weapons end up; and there is no hope that an insurgency will defeat Assad anytime soon.
- Redouble encouragement for peaceful demonstrations, which are occurring every day in Syria, and try to ensure that the U.N. observers are present for them.
- Increase the flow of non-weapons aid to the opposition inside Syria, which claims to have received precious little so far, and provide intelligence on threatening movements of Syrian security forces.
- Present overhead video of heavy weapons in use against Syrian cities at the Security Council, along with other hard evidence of Annan plan violations. Anne-Marie Slaughter has proposed a U.N. website that would post video and photographs uploaded by Syrians.
- Tighten the application of sanctions, including implementing the draconian financial sanctions already adopted for Iran against Syria as well.
When the Security Council approved the Annan plan, the United States called for “swift and meaningful consequences … should the regime continue to flout its obligations.” The best way of getting those consequences approved in the Security Council is to support full implementation of the Annan plan. Then the United States can go to the Council in mid-July, when the observer mission has to be renewed, arguing that despite its sincere efforts, Bashar al-Assad has defied the international community and needs to be taught a lesson.
PHOTO: Anti-government protesters attend the funeral of Mahmoud Al Moustafa, whom protesters said was killed by forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, in Deir Al Zour, May 15, 2012. REUTERS/Handout
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Block that kick!
A correspondent sent me this English translation of the transcript of Greek political leaders meeting on May 16, published on the Greek presidency website. Any corrections to the translation will of course be welcome:
Kamenos (Independent Greeks): Mr. President, we would like to have clear guidance from this Council of political leaders under your presidency on how to handle the issue that might arise with Skopje joining NATO at the Chicago Summit under the name “Macedonia”. I would like that we express our opinion that in this process we have even the option to veto the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to join NATO under the name “Macedonia”.
Kamenos: I would like to reopen the issue, whether there is a a possibility to give a direct order even for a veto to stop the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from joining NATO under “Macedonia”. So far I don’t have an answer. I ask again mr. President.
Venizelos (PASOK): There will be, there will be.
Kamenos: All right then.
Venizelos: Regarding the important questions that were raised, as you know, the agenda of the NATO Summit does not include the question of admitting Skopje. So, there is no question of enlargement. And if there are any questions raised at the sidelines of the Summit, they will be dealt with according to our national strategy and the arguments that also include (our response to the) verdict of the International Court of Justice to the Hague. So, our arguments need to be more intelligent then the ones we gave in 2008 (Bucharest NATO Summit).
Samaras (New Democracy): Of course. We mustn’t back down from Bucharest.
Venizelos: Obviously. All we need to do is reinforce our arguments in a way that is, shall I say, more skillful and intelligent.
Kamenos: But is using the veto to last possible weapon? This is what I’m asking?
Venizelos: Yes, yes.
President Papoulias: I think that Kamenos speaks of the possibility that the Skopje issue is added to the Summit agenda…
Venizelos: Yes, all right.
Papoulias: …Because right now it is not.
Venizelos: On the other hand, the reaction after the Hague verdict was very friendly toward Greece and our positions. I say this because I dealt with the issue as defense and finance minister.
Tsipras (SYRIZA): Regarding NATO, if Ms. Papariga will let me speak so I don’t have to take the floor again, I would like to make the same point as Mr. Venizelos. To the best of my knowledge, the Summit Agenda is determined unanimously by the NATO members, and it doesn’t include the issue of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. So, unless there is some surprise, which is not common practice in such occasions, there is no serious problem. I believe that our position, that should be followed by the interim Government, is the position that we also held so far regarding this important issue, that we, as a country, want the name issue to be dealt with a mutually acceptable solution with a geographic qualifier. There is no need to go into this any longer. Regarding the NATO summit, I think we are covered by the fact that this issue is not on the agenda.
Papariga (Greek Communist Party): Because this issue is not on the agenda, there is no need for discussion. If it does suddenly appear on the agenda, the one who is going (to Chicago) will put a veto so it will not be discussed, because there is no official Greek Government. Our position is known, let’s not discuss it now, before the elections.
Kouvelis (Democratic Left): There is no need to open non-existing questions. It is not on the agenda. We have a specific strategy as a country. In any case it needs to be stopped. And it is possible to be stopped. We will be there to resist, if someone wants to put it on the agenda. But, today we have two facts: primarily, the national strategy and also the fact that the issue is not on the agenda.
Samaras: We are discussing this in case there is a surprise.
Kouvelis: That’s what I said.
Samaras: In case of a surprise there should definitely be a veto. We are not even discussing that.Venizelos: Agreed. These things are understood without saying.
Kouvelis: These things are understood Mr. Samaras.
It is rare that one gets a transcript of political leaders planning to violate a decision of the International Court of Justice. But it is also curious that they are discussing the admission of “Macedonia” to NATO. Everyone I’ve discussed the issue with, including those who call themselves “Macedonians,” agrees that Skopje can only enter NATO at this point as The FYROM, in accordance with the 1995 interim agreement.
At least Greece’s representatives in Chicago on Sunday and Monday will have something to do that the country’s political leadership, busily preparing for financial apocalypse, thinks worthwhile. Even though there is no ball in play, they are ready to block that kick!
RSS - Posts
