FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Syria Talks: Is Jaw Jaw Better Than War War?

Image Source: UN Live Web TV – Screen Capture

The opening of Geneva talks of a Syrian constitutional committee organized by the latest UN representative for Syria, Geir Pedersen, brings to mind the famous adage attributed to Winston Churchill; “It is better to jaw jaw than to war war.” One hundred fifty Syrians from the government, opposition and civil society are meeting in the city of Calvin to work on a document that will form the basis of a future “credible, inclusive, and non-sectarian” government.

Does the adage hold here? What are the chances for this meeting to succeed? The list of negatives is long. First, the convenor, the United Nations, has had three previous special representatives. All, including the former Secretary-General and Nobel Prize winner Kofi Annan have failed throughout the civil war. Second, although the meeting was supposed to include only Syrians with no outside interference, the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran are also in Geneva as well as the United States’ special representative for Syria. What was supposed to be an inclusive Syrian meeting has turned into a realpolitik gathering with most of the dominant powers in the region present, but they are not directly participating.

Third, there have been criticisms from those not at the table about the representatives from civil society. Complaints point to the lack of true representation; it took two years for the parties to agree on membership. As with all peace negotiations, it is difficult to identify true representatives of civil society. There are always the elite ready to participate, especially in some luxury hotel in Geneva. But the most egregious error is the failure to have the Kurds represented as an independent group. There are Kurds in several of the groups, but the Self Administration in Northern Syria/Rojava has not been formally represented.

Aside from these obvious negatives, two other factors stand out First, a meeting to discuss a future constitution cannot be realistic when violence continues. By having a meeting to work on a constitution before fighting has stopped is the wrong order. A temporary cease-fire has not been successful, and it is more and more evident that fighting on the Turkish-Syrian border continues. The expulsion of the Kurds and responsibility for ISIS prisoners remain unsolved problems. Discussing a future constitution implies a degree of stability on the ground that is far from evident. No road map for a peaceful transition is on the table for the moment.

The meeting seems to accept the continuing rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Peace experts tell us there can be no peace without justice. Can there be justice with Assad still in power? President Barack Obama said that a “red line” would be crossed if Assad used chemical weapons but then walked away from Syria. President Donald Trump initially toed the same line. We are way beyond that point. Schools and hospitals have been bombed by the government; these heinous acts are crimes of war and against humanity. Will Assad be brought to trial or does stability trump justice?

According to the U.S. special envoy, Mr. al-Assad’s administration, “is the legal government — even if you think it is a horrific, terrible and laden-with-war-crimes government.” It is disheartening to imagine recognizing Assad’s legitimacy.

Finally, Turkish forces have entered Syrian territory. Isn’t this an act of aggression that should be considered a threat to international peace and security? Instead of dealing with a future constitution, shouldn’t the United Nations be focusing on this fundamental violation of international law?

“We all understand that the constitutional committee itself will not bring a solution to the conflict,” Mr. Pedersen said. After over seven years of conflict and hundreds of thousands of deaths as well as millions displaced, the meeting in Geneva is the first meeting of the parties concerned. Is that reason enough to be optimistic?

The withdrawal of US troops on October 6 from northeastern Syria has not helped the situation. Assad, Russia and Turkey seem firmly in control of the region with the Kurds being sacrificed and the United States only interested in guarding oil reserves. So geopolitics has priority over any form of resolution of the Syrian conflict. Certainly any just resolution.

Churchill had a point, in principle. But “jaw jaw” can give a false image of progress toward an equitable solution. While not proposing to lock all the parties in an army base in the Midwest to force them to sign a provisional agreement to stop the fighting, one should not be optimistic about the Geneva talks. Constitutions are best written when violence ends. A monitored ceasefire along the Syrian-Turkish border should be the first step in lessening the violence. After that, a constitutional committee can work to reconstruct some form of stability, including justice for the victims. If jaw jaw is better than war war, it should never be at the expense of a peace without justice.

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
Farzana Versey
What Religion is Your Nationalism?
Clark T. Scott
The Focus on Trump Reveals the Democrat Model
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Do Bernie’s Supporters Know What “Not Me, Us” Means? Does Bernie?
Peter Harley
Aldo Leopold, Revisited
Winslow Myers
A Presidential Speech the World Needs to Hear
Christopher Brauchli
The Chosen One
Jim Britell
Misconceptions About Lobbying Representatives and Agencies
Ted Rall
Trump Gets Away with Stuff Because He Does
Mel Gurtov
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the Insecurity of China’s Leadership
Nicky Reid
Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion
Tom H. Hastings
Cross-Generational Power to Change
John Kendall Hawkins
1619: The Mighty Whitey Arrives
Julian Rose
Why I Don’t Have a Mobile Phone
Elliot Sperber
Class War is Chemical War
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
Nick Pemberton
Gen Z and Free Speech
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail