Tag: Russia

The Geneva 2 Rohrschach

I spent yesterday listening to well-informed people talk (Las Vegas rules) about prospects for the January 22/23 Montreux/Geneva 2 peace talks.  The UN faxed invitations Monday.  The Syrian government has already named its delegation.  The Russians are in.  Iran is not invited to the multilateral opening day in Montreux, but John Kerry says it can hang around with everyone else while UN envoy Brahimi meets with the Syrian parties on the second day in Geneva.  Faute de mieux, the Americans are committed to Geneva 2 and anxious that it begin a peace process, even if there is no hope it will conclude one.  “What else can we do?” they ask plaintively.

The Syrian opposition doesn’t know if it is coming or going.  Some portion of Etilaf, the Syrian Opposition Coalition that Washington and other capitals have accepted as the political representative of the Syrian people, is bound to give in to US pressure to attend, but no formal decision has been taken yet.  The Syrian National Council component of Etilaf is against attending.  So of course are the more extreme Islamists armed groups.  Most moderate Islamist armed groups, organized now as the Islamic Front, are also opposed.  The Free Syrian Army’s Supreme Military Council will have to go, since it gets a lot of assistance from the US.

Why would the opposition not want to attend?  Let me count the reasons:

  • There is no serious possibility of Geneva 2 implementing the Geneva 1 goal of a “transitional governing body with full executive authority,” since Bashar al Asad is clearly not prepared to step aside, down or up.
  • Anyone from the opposition who attends will be regarded as a traitor by those who don’t, including armed groups with the capacity to do real harm.
  • Even if the risks are not mortal, the political risk is significant.
  • Attending will fragment the opposition even more and weaken it.
  • The opposition does not trust the Americans and loathes the Russians.
  • Whatever statement comes out of Geneva 2, it will have to be balanced between the Americans and Russians, which means it could imply support for the scheduled May elections, focus on fighting terrorism rather than ending Asad’s brutality towards the Syrian people and imply an obligation of those attending to cut off supplies of arms (thus obligating Saudi Arabia and Qatar but not Iran).

A ceasefire agreed at Geneva will be meaningless, as the extremist militias not present will violate it right away, with the regime responding in kind (if not pre-empting). The only real upside for the opposition at Geneva would be agreement on humanitarian access.  But the opposition believes that could be agreed without negotiation between the warring parties, as it is a clear legal obligation for the government to allow relief to the civilian population.

One-third of Etilaf is already said to have resigned to protest against going to Geneva 2, which even the many fighters who want a political solution regard as an a snare and a delusion.  Without changing the military balance on the ground, and without strong American backing, Geneva 2 will cause more fragmentation in the opposition.  It will also weaken relative moderates within the opposition and strengthen extremists.  The West is setting up the opposition for failure.

What will it do for the the regime, the Russians and the Iranians?

The regime looks to an international meeting like Geneva 2 for legitimacy, which it has never sought from the Syrian people.  It will claim to have offered reforms and even amnesty, portray itself as a bulwark against extremism, denounce the international conspiracy against Asad and claim that what it has done on chemical weapons demonstrates its reliability.  Disciplined and organized, it will present a clean face to the world in Montreux, even if barrel bombs are still falling on the civilian population of Aleppo.

Moscow’s main objective is to prevent chaos and the flow of extremists from Syria (where 5-600 Russian citizens are fighting against the regime), as well as to protect specific interests like port access and protection of orthodox Christians.  It is difficult for Moscow to see how chaos can be avoided if the regime is removed.  Russia doesn’t want to see Libyan-style chaos in Syria.  In Moscow’s view, a majority of Syrians still supports Asad, who may well run for re-election in May.  He is not creating the extremists, who would exist even if there were no war in Syria.  The Sunni/Shia divide is exaggerated.  It is strife within the Sunni community that is really important.  Transitional justice in Moscow’s estimation should be postponed, as it has been in Cambodia.  It claims to be ready for a peaceful transition to democracy, but there is no sign it is ready to cut off the weapons flow to the regime.

Nor is there sign Iran is ready to abandon Asad.  The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in particular the Quds Force, controls Iran’s policy on Syria, not President Rouhani.  There is no open dissent from the official narrative:  Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia are trying to remove Asad, so the “resistance front” (Hizbollah and the IRGC) needs to respond.  They cannot be restrained without stopping the flow of extremists and Gulf financing to the opposition forces.  Iran would like an invitation to Montreux, but not with conditions.  It will not accept the Geneva 1 goal.

Tomorrow:  I’ll attempt to answer that plaintive question:  “what else can we do?”

Tags : , , , , ,

Hang together, or hang separately

Hadi Bahra, of the Syrian Coalition political office, is anxious to call attention to UN Security Council resolution 2118, which not only provided for removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons capability, but also endorsed

fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 (Annex II), which sets out a number of key steps beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.

The problem is that the Russians are far from agreeing that this should be the over-riding purpose of a “Geneva 2” conference.  Nor is Bashar al Asad preparing to send a delegation to the January 23/24 Montreux/Geneva conference empowered to hand over all executive authority.

The Syrian Coalition is right to insist, but the question is what it should do if it doesn’t get its way, as it won’t.  Does it still go to Montreux/Geneva, or does it refuse?

Refusing would mean stiffing John Kerry, endangering American and other Western support and handing a propaganda victory to Bashar al Asad.  That’s not a good outcome.

Attending means daring the Syrian regime to show up, gaining a bully pulpit for the opposition’s own interpretation of UNSC resolution 2118, and giving the Americans some satisfaction.  Many in the opposition hope the regime will not take the dare and embarrass itself by not showing up.  That would be a satisfying outcome, but just for that reason unlikely.  The Russians will deliver the Syrians, just as the Americans will deliver the opposition.

What will happen at Montreux/Geneva, assuming both sides do turn up?  The Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG) recently ran a simulation intended to find out.  The simulation focused on establishing a ceasefire, forming a transitional government and accountability for wartime abuses.  To make a long story short, the Syrian opposition was fragmented going in and the pressure of negotiation made things worse.  A unified Syrian government delegation with strong Russian support had a field day reinforcing the notion that President Asad is indispensable.  The Americans and Russians conspired to keep Asad symbolically in place while a technocratic government took over.  Only a walkout–not something that will gain any points with the international community–saved the opposition from getting its clock cleaned.

Simulations are just that.  They are not reality.  PILPG spins the outcome in positive directions:  the opposition needs to come to Geneva 2 unified around its own plans for security, transitional governance and accountability.

That does not appear likely.  Pressed hard on the battlefield, the opposition continues to shatter. While the Syrian National Coalition is reported to be meeting Monday in Turkey to elect its president (or re-elect the current one), other groups are meeting in Spain.  The Islamic Front fighters have not supported either group as yet, and it is unclear whether they will turn up in any form Montreux/Geneva.  The extremists associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Jabhat al Nusra are uninterested in the talks.  Syrian Kurdish attitudes are divided.

There is a lot of preparatory work still to be done.  Hang together, or hang separately.

Tags : , , , ,

Is Snowden above the law he says others violate?

I think yesterday’s New York Times editorial declaring Edward Snowden a whistle blower is wrong.  The Times argues that

■ The N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency’s own internal auditor.

■ The agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. Many of those companies are now scrambling to install systems that the N.S.A. cannot yet penetrate.

■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust.

■ His leaks revealed that James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress when testifying in March that the N.S.A. was not collecting data on millions of Americans. (There has been no discussion of punishment for that lie.)

■ The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rebuked the N.S.A. for repeatedly providing misleading information about its surveillance practices, according to a ruling made public because of the Snowden documents. One of the practices violated the Constitution, according to the chief judge of the court.

■ A federal district judge ruled earlier this month that the phone-records-collection program probably violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. He called the program “almost Orwellian” and said there was no evidence that it stopped any imminent act of terror.

Let’s grant that all these allegations are true.  Do they justify what Snowden did? Read more

Tags : , ,

The 2013 vintage in the peace vineyard

2013 has been a so-so vintage in the peace vineyard.

The Balkans saw improved relations between Serbia and Kosovo, progress by both towards the European Union and Croatian membership.  Albania managed a peaceful alternation in power.  But Bosnia and Macedonia remain enmired in long-running constitutional and nominal difficulties, respectively.  Slovenia, already a NATO and EU member, ran into financial problems, as did CyprusTurkey‘s long-serving and still politically dominant prime minister managed to get himself into trouble over a shopping center and corruption.

The former Soviet space has likewise seen contradictory developments:  Moldova‘s courageous push towards the EU, Ukraine‘s ongoing, nonviolent rebellion against tighter ties to Russia, and terrorist challenges to the Sochi Winter Olympics. Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jail time

The news is full of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s release from jail of former rival Mikhail Khodorkovsky and members of the punk rock band Pussy Riot.  All concerned were due to be released soon anyway.  Their early release signals that Putin is feeling confident.  Neither Khodorkovsky nor Pussy Riot is likely to mount a serious challenge to his position and power anytime soon.  Russia’s pro-democracy protest movement has withered in the years since it fielded large crowds in Moscow.

Less noticed is the sentencing in Egypt of human rights activists, including my friend Ahmed Maher, to three years hard labor and substantial fines for organizing a demonstration defying a decree issued by the military-backed government that took over after this summer’s coup.  The tough sentences indicate that the military is not confident of its power and position.  It needs high turnout and high approval in the January 14-15 referendum on its recently proposed constitution before it can be certain the secular activists won’t be able to mobilize large protests.  Once their political edge is removed, they too may be released early or even pardoned. Read more

Tags : , , , , , ,

A decent Syrian election: result, not prelude

Jimmy Carter and Robert Pastor propose an election to resolve Syria’s civil war.  They suggest three principles that would have to be accepted as preconditions for negotiating the war’s end:

● Self-determination: The Syrian people should decide on the country’s future government in a free election process under the unrestricted supervision of the international community and responsible nongovernmental organizations, with the results accepted if the elections are judged free and fair;

● Respect: The victors should assure and guarantee respect for all sectarian and minority groups; and

● Peacekeepers: To ensure that the first two goals are achieved, the international community must guarantee a robust peacekeeping force.

And they spell out first steps: Read more

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Tweet