Category Archives: Politics

Government, Middle East, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Calming the violence in Syria…

Intro: The Geneva talks may help to calm the bloodshed in Syria, but there are other practical measures that can be taken

The Syrian peace talks which began this week in Switzerland began dramatically. The original invitation for Iran to join the talks was quickly reversed and the first significant and genuine attempt by the US and Russia to bring an end to the civil war that is tearing the country apart was made. If these efforts cannot be sustained, and many suspect they can’t, it will still be important for definitive steps to be taken into de-escalating the conflict. Such terrible losses and suffering on the Syrian people should not be understated.

The fact that the meeting in Geneva did take place really does matter. For the first time since the conflict began, the government and a faction of the opposition were brought together. This can only be an advance on what has happened between the two sides that have been driven by a need to kill each other. What is more, the energy which Washington and Moscow put into staging the talks is the clearest sign yet of a genuine desire to bring the conflict to an end. When the US and Europe saw such a meeting as a precursor to the inevitable demise of Bashar al-Assad some 18 months ago, the same supposition was not necessarily true. The military balance of power on the ground was such that government forces were never likely to suffer total defeat without a full-scale foreign intervention. That option disappeared when the US and Britain abandoned plans for a military strike last September, after a chemical gas attack was used on civilians in Damascus. Since then, a recipe for continuing the war has been the uncompromising demands for Assad’s surrender.

Practical measures could be taken to calm the violence. Local ceasefires do already exist and could be expanded, with UN observers monitoring on the ground ready and able to mediate on the need for a longer-term solution. Without that, hatred and distrust between the two sides will ensure that ceasefires have a short life-span. UN observers are also needed to help coordinate relief convoys to rebel-held enclaves, where people are starving and in dire need of humanitarian assistance and aid. The same applies to prisoner swaps.

Given that the Iranian and Saudi governments are crucial players on opposing sides of the conflict, it is unfortunate that Iran has been absent from this week’s talks. To have one and not the other present has undermined the credibility of the negotiations. The open willingness of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to see an end to the fighting without victory for the rebels – of whom they are the main financial and military supporters – must be tested.

A reduction in violence might also be achieved by pressuring Turkey to clamp down on jihadi fighters crossing its 500-mile-long border with Syria. Turkey denies any acquiescence, but all the evidence suggests that it has backed rebels of every persuasion.

The gravest challenge in setting up the Geneva conference has underlined just how difficult it will be in the future to get a multitude of players with differing interests, inside and outside of Syria, to agree to anything. But a negotiated peace is the only option in bringing to an end the slaughter in a conflict that is now almost into its fourth year. However far away a solution may seem to be all parties concerned have a duty in bringing the bloodshed and suffering in Syria to an end.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, Syria, United Nations

Solving the Syrian peace conundrum will be a struggle…

GENEVA PEACE TALKS

It will be a struggle, if not an impossible conundrum, to bring together all the interested parties in Syria’s civil war around the same negotiating table. With peace talks in Geneva due to start tomorrow consider the obstacles to these talks if Iran is present. The Syrian opposition would likely walk out, closely followed by Saudi Arabia. But shun Iran, and the outside power with the greatest influence on events will be freed from any obligation to accept whatever agreement is reached.

It remains uncertain whether all the parties with a vested interest will actually attend the summit. Amid the diplomatic manoeuvring, though, some central and underlying points are worth restating.

Common humanity dictates that all those countries with an interest should, on the face of it, be able to find points of agreement. This should be possible regardless of how their interests differ. For instance, who would deny the need for humanitarian aid to reach the areas sealed off by the regime of Bashar al-Assad? Or, what of his use of barrel bombs – devastating weapons that are packed with nails, petroleum and high explosives.

For Syria’s opposition there is a deeply uncomfortable truth it must accept and come to terms with. Whilst many will not like it, Iran will have to be party to any settlement that is reached. Tehran has sent thousands of troops from its Revolutionary Guard to fight in support of Assad. The Syrian dictator is clearly a leader being kept in power with Iranian backing. Iran’s signature will be needed if any agreement is to work.

All the parties concerned must be aware of the paradox that has stemmed from Assad’s narrative that Syria’s civil war has become a contest between his regime and al-Qaeda, and that Assad himself is the lesser of two evils. The enigma is that Assad has actively encouraged extremists to win influence within the opposition, precisely to confront us with this very choice. That should expose Assad’s derisive cynicism as much as he has become known for his cold-blooded brutality.

Standard
Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Transformational leadership is needed for a re-moralising of politics and society…

A NEED FOR THE MORALS OF POLITICS TO BE RE-EXAMINED

Intro: The desire for transformational politics is high given the moral challenges of today

We often hear people say that politicians are ‘all the same’, which infer a general objection to our technocratic, managerial political culture. During 2013, figures from outside the Westminster bubble unearthed a public yearning for leaders with the moral and ethical clarity to face many of our present woes.

The greatest need for moral leadership is at its peak during times of economic scarcity. The financial crisis of 2008 and the years of austerity that have followed have returned to the fore the ethical questions that were too often set aside and ignored during the pre-crash era. Political and economic questions such as, ‘How should limited resources be allocated?’, ‘What constitutes the good society?’, ‘What are the values that should underpin our economy?’, or, ‘Can individualism and the common good be reconciled?’ The public disillusionment with our political leaders and what their parties stand for can partly be explained by their direct failure to address these issues more convincingly. When politics is reduced to a game, and when party strategists continually seek to outmanoeuvre each other for short-term tactical advantage, it is unsurprising that the public turns away. The frequent cliché that they are ‘all the same’ is not an attack (as is often thought) on a perceived lack of policy divergence, but on the managerial and technocratic culture that political parties embody.

Behind such public apathy and disillusionment, there is a craving for answers to the moral challenges of our time and for national leaders who can at least attempt to provide them. The recent death of one of the world’s most respected statesman, Nelson Mandela, has made this even more so.

Noticeably, however, one of the trends of 2013 was the emergence of leaders outside the political circle who have shown considerable moral guidance. Pope Francis, for example, has revived his Church’s spiritual fortunes by reorienting it away from the conservative obsessions of same-sex marriage, abortion and contraception and towards issues of economic equality and social justice. Pope Francis has made a number of emblematic gestures since becoming Pontiff last March, including humble acts such as carrying his own suitcase, living in a modest hostel as opposed to the rich grandeur of the Vatican palace, the embracing of a disfigured man, and has communicated his vision of a church ‘of the poor, for the poor’. The moral denunciation by Francis of ‘unbridled capitalism’ has resonated all the more as a result of his church’s changing stance and position. After decades of steep decline, church attendance among Roman Catholics has risen significantly across the world, including in Britain too.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who was enthroned two days after the inauguration of Pope Francis, has, over the same period, reaffirmed the Church of England’s status as ‘a defender of the most vulnerable.’ He has openly condemned the coalition government’s welfare cap on benefits and for making children and families pay the price for high inflation, rather than the government. Mr Welby has denounced the usurious lending of payday loan companies and has been equally critical of banks in their desire to continually seek what is ‘legal’ and never what is ‘right’. Like Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury has demonstrated his Church’s values through deeds as well as words.

One need not share their faith to respect the moral clarity that both religious leaders have brought to issues of economic justice. There have been others, too, such as the comedian Russell Brand, who provoked a remarkably successful debate with his insistence that the solution to deepening inequality and rampant consumerism has to be primarily ‘spiritual’ and his declaration that profit is ‘the most profane word we have’, commanded public attention for almost a fortnight in a way few politicians can.

Whilst not standing for public election, neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury faces the same kind of struggles to reconcile competing interests as many of our politicians must contend with. The political class can learn, though, from how they have engaged with fundamental questions and how previously dormant debates have been actively revived.

Some of our more thoughtful MPs from across the political spectrum have recognised the need for a different kind of politics. Jon Cruddas, Labour’s policy review co-ordinator, for example, called for a ‘reimagined socialism’ in his George Lansbury Memorial Lecture in November. Mr Cruddas called for a type of socialism that is ‘romantic, not scientific; humane and warm; passionate yet humble’ and one that ‘pushes back against party orthodoxy, careerism and transactional politics’.

The re-moralisation of our politics and society remains a deep desire five years after the financial crash. In leading that transformation, we still await the politician who can inspire and provide the transformational leadership many people are now demanding.

 

Standard