Tag Archives: Iran

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Syria

Recent peace talks in Syria have been a complete failure…

SYRIA

The recent round of peace talks in Geneva concerning Syria collapsed in just under 30 minutes. If anyone believed that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his enemies had the slightest intention of making peace, this latest setback should be evidence enough of just how difficult it is going to be in bringing about a peace treaty. At this stage it seems wholly impossible. Just to get the blood-stained dictator and a selection of his foes to the negotiating table required almost three years of international endeavour and a death toll that has now reached 140,000 people since the civil war started. All efforts to bring about peace in Syria have ended in failure.

The crisis has usurped even the bleakest of forecasts. Last year, it seemed reasonable and rational to believe that Assad’s agreement to disable his poisonous gases and chemical weapons would at least rid the conflict of these ghastly weapons. But even that deal is unravelling.

Under the agreed timetable, 700 tons of Assad’s most dangerous chemical agents should have been shipped out of Syria by 31 December, 2013. In January, the best estimate was that a mere 4 per cent had actually been removed. It is understood that a further shipment (of an undisclosed size) has taken place since, but it will not have altered the overall stockpiles of chemical agents being held by the Syrian regime by that much. The agreement was designed to destroy Syria’s entire inventory of some 1,300 tons; less than 50 tons has been deemed to have been disposed of.

More worryingly, hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Syria’s war-torn country to join the most radical rebel groups, most of which are aligned to Al-Qaeda. British intelligence and senior police officers are gravely concerned of the prospect of these people returning home to the UK with their newly-found skills acquired from Al-Qaeda run training camps disbursed throughout Syria and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. No counter-terrorism official doubts that such radicalised individuals threaten our national security.

Syria is systematically destroying itself before our very eyes. Millions of refugees have been displaced and are placing an intolerable strain on neighbouring countries as they seek refuge and shelter. All efforts to bring peace to this blood-soaked land have been foiled, and have created in the process a new generation of jihadists.

No one should forget that Assad has been aided in his mission – and been given a licence to do what he has been doing – through Russia and Iran who have sustained this war by arming and funding the Syrian regime.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, History, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

The US Secretary of State faces challenges, but is John Kerry sufficiently supported?

US FOREIGN POLICY

John Kerry has illuminated the paradox of current American foreign policy. No where is this more embodied than in the Middle East, the region that continues to consume so much time and effort for the US Secretary of State. Rarely has the diplomacy and energies spent been as active and as bold as they are today. But flamboyant charges that the US is enfeebled and in retreat are also accusations that are running in parallel.

Mr Kerry is tacitly involved on three immensely challenging and overlapping fronts: his efforts to end the bloody civil war in Syria; the continued search for a nuclear deal with Iran that might end more than three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran; and, the renewed and engaging process to secure a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestinians that has eluded negotiators since 1948.

An analysis of the progress being made will reveal a mixed picture. Encouragingly, the best advances have been made with Iran, with an interim deal that parts of the country’s nuclear programme have been frozen for a period of six months. This deal could yet unravel, but the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a process of constructive dialogue.

To the other extreme, Syria constitutes a total failure. The recent Geneva conference which could not even deliver an agreement on bringing humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of civilians, trapped by the savagery of the conflict, epitomises this rank failure. Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to arm and supply the regime, while progress on securing Assad’s chemical weapons and stockpiles is, at best, described as being limited. More accurately, it would not be amiss to say that progress in removing Assad’s arsenal has been brought to a stuttering halt.

The current state of play in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is less clear. Whilst Mr Kerry has been doggedly determined in keeping talks going, his indefatigability may be perceived from different angles of thought. For those who support him, this involvement and persistent diligence is proof of resolve. It is also recognition of his courage by placing his prestige on the line in a way that many of his predecessors never did. For the detractors, though, the US Secretary of State is merely on an ego trip, driven largely by the naïve belief that hope will triumph over experience. The more impartial may wonder whether Mr Kerry’s goal of a ‘framework’ plan – an agreement by the two sides on the shape of the final agreement with the details being worked out later – is really any different from the other diplomatic formulae’, such as the ‘road maps’, that have littered nearly seven decades of futile peacekeeping.

Underpinning Mr Kerry’s efforts on all three fronts is the ‘damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t’ scenario faced by the US in the Middle East. Most expect America to lead, even if its ability to shape and bend the region to its will is often grossly exaggerated. When the U.S. has taken decisive action, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been accused of being a blundering warmonger. Following on from these two long and costly interventions, Americans will have no appetite for another. Yet, when it steadfastly refuses to robustly intervene in Syria (or to a lesser extent in Egypt), it is denounced for abandoning its responsibilities, and of condoning and supporting human rights abuses. It can hardly wave a magic wand and expect all to be well.

American history tends to suggest that the most effective Secretaries of State tend to be those that have been closest to their respective Presidents. Henry Kissinger, for instance, under President Richard Nixon, or James Baker who held post during the reign of President George HW Bush, spring to mind. Secretary of State Kerry is barely a year into his tenure, and so it is too early to say whether he will join this company. Success, however, on one of the three major challenges he is faced with would amount to a distinguished and noteworthy achievement.

Standard
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