Ending with finger-pointing angry out burst and renewed public relations campaigns to sway international opinion, the Geneva 2 peace talks died its predicted death late Saturday 02.15.2014. Weary UN-Arab League envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi finally pronounced the demise of compromise, essentially citing irreconcilable differences between the waring factions. After three weeks of intensely senseless negotiations, a dejected Brahimi joined the ranks of previous international conflict managers, making his apologies for failure and conceding the near hopelessness of the crisis.
Apparently preferring death to dishonor as they parted ways, those charged with negotiating the fate of the Syrian people are returning to their respective camps with nothing to show but more excuses and a lot of blame. As late as Friday 02.14.2014, John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov were still debating objectives, the Geneva 1 communique was to achieve.
In reality, the idea of attempting to broker a compromise with so many lingering ambiguities bordered on the absurd. How there could be a dispute over the very foundation of core objectives at this late stage of the process, can only lead one to believe somebody tried to get slick.
In the final analysis, Geneva 2 was a bad idea, because Geneva 1 was a bad idea. Geneva 1 was a bad idea because it was never a fully accepted idea. And that, is where the hard questions begin and end. Did anybody realize the Geneva 1 document was so front-loaded with Westerns demands, it read more like a wish list for some utopian secular Democracy than a negotiating tool for bridging the gulf between hundreds of independent groups, thirsting for the blood of the others.
Did everybody get the same document? Did everybody read the document they got? Did each side take the document they got seriously? Did something get lost in the document's translation? Did the primary instigators just think if they could get all the participants in the same room, something positive would magically happen? Did they just decide to wing it or did somebody just try to pull a fast one? After what just happened, aren't these reasonable questions to ask?
Still, considering how many U.S. Congressional representatives sign off on legislation they know absolutely nothing about, perhaps U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's former stint as a U.S. Senator led him to believe the international community approached its responsibilities with the same lack of due diligence as his former colleagues do.
Anyone who took the time to carefully examine the language of the Geneva 1 Communique would have found so much room for interpretation, one could only conclude the document was completely useless from the onset. The Western interpretation of said document boiled down to one primary objective; an immediate transitional government being installed, without the involvement of Bashar al-Assad in any way shape or form. Unfortunately, from Russia and China's perspective, this was hardly a reasonable starting point to address a complex multifaceted conflict such as Syria's. And both stated as such at the time the communiqué was being authored.
Russia's Statement 06.22.2012:
It is senseless to press Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit office, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday. "This scheme does not work from the beginning. It is incapable because he will not go," Lavrov told local media. The top Russian diplomat stated at least half of the Syrian people voted for Bashar al-Assad during the latest elections, seeing him as a guarantor of their future and security. Bashar al-Assad's future must be decided by the Syrians themselves, he added.
China's Statement: 06.30.2012
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi attended the meeting of the Action Group on Syria at Palais des Nations of Geneva and went a step further. Yang made a four-point proposal for properly resolving the Syrian crisis.
In summary Yang said, "We call on the international community, particularly members of the Action Group, to urge in a balanced way the Syrian government and the opposition to earnestly implement Mr. Kofi Annan's six-point proposal and relevant Security Council resolutions, put an end to fighting and violence, start as soon as possible an inclusive political dialogue with no preconditions attached and no prejudged outcomes, and jointly push forward the political process," he said.
Russia and China were clearly interpreting the goals of the so-called Action Group for Syria as seeking an immediate cessation of all violence so the humanitarian crisis could be addressed, leading to an all inclusive political solution with no preconditions. As far as Russia and China is concerned, beyond the aforementioned, whatever happens in Syria is up to the Syrian people and only the Syrian people.
Despite claims to the contrary, Russia and China never wavered on these points. Holding steadfast to a non-interventionist position, Russia and China have stated relentlessly, arming the rebels (whoever that happens to be) while demanding the immediate ouster of Bashar al-Assad was always a non-stater. Any attempts to undermine Bashar al-Assad's ability to rule as an elected leader of his sovereign nation would be met with a veto on the U.N. Security Council. If there was ever a change in that position, this writer missed it.
The Bottom line: In the three weeks it took to realize all sides were inadequately prepared to sit down at the bargaining table, more than five thousand Syrians have been killed. Perhaps, they would have died anyway considering the level of violence, but when time is of the essence, anyone approaching the negotiating process with ulterior motives, must share the responsibility for some of those deaths.
Comments
Post a Comment