TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Annan warns ‘history will judge’ the world’s failure on Syria

The former UN chief has convened a meeting of foreign ministers to try and broker a deal on Syria – but it’s looking unlikely.

Kofi Annan with Hillary Clinton at the Action Group on Syria meeting in the UN HQ in Geneva today
Kofi Annan with Hillary Clinton at the Action Group on Syria meeting in the UN HQ in Geneva today
Image: AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari

INTERNATIONAL ENVOY KOFI Annan has warned divided world powers Saturday that history “will judge us all harshly” if no deal was struck to end the bloodshed in Syria and chart a transition.

As the West pointed to persistent opposition from Beijing and Moscow to a transition deal, Annan told a meeting in Geneva that the world would be partly responsible for further deaths if it failed to agree on a roadmap.

“It is the Syrian people who will be the greatest victims, and their deaths will be the consequence of not only the acts of killers on the ground but also your inability to bridge the divisions between you,” he said.

“History is a sombre judge – and it will judge us all harshly if we prove incapable of taking the right path today,” he said.

Annan had convened the meeting of foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council states, the United States, Russia, Britain, China and France, as well as regional powers Qatar, Turkey, Kuwait and Iraq, while conspicuously leaving out Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A key sticking point in the talks was Annan’s proposal on how a power transition could be organised in Syria, where violence has claimed 15,800 lives since March last year.

Moscow and Beijing were against Annan’s proposal envisaging a handover to an interim team that excludes those “whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardise stability and reconciliation”.

The wording appears to imply that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would have to relinquish his grip on power for the idea to succeed, a proposal backed by the West.

Russia insists that Assad’s fate “must be decided within the framework of a Syrian dialogue by the Syrian people themselves.”

Syria Diplomacy Clinton

Kofi Annan speaking with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon (left) and Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov before the start of the meeting today. (Photo: AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

British Foreign Secretary William Hague headed into the meeting, saying it “remains very difficult” to bridge the gap and that “I don’t know if this will be possible.”

A senior US official also said today’s bid to find a political end to the war in Syria “remain challenging” and a deal may prove elusive.

“Discussions remain challenging, we are continuing to work on this today but we need a plan that is strong and credible, so we may get there, we may not,” the official said.

Failed peace process

The meeting is a bid to salvage Annan’s peace process that has been largely ignored by both the ruling regime and opposition since it came into force on 12 April.

Fighting has only intensified in recent weeks and rights monitors say violence killed 11 people across Syria on Saturday, and trapped hundreds more in Douma in Damascus province north of the capital.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was however upbeat ahead of the meeting, saying he “detected a shift” in Washington’s approach to ending the bloodshed that no longer involved a specific demand for Assad to leave.

“There were no ultimatums. Not a word was said about the document now being discussed in Geneva being completely untouchable,” Lavrov told reporters in reference to wording that suggest no future role for Assad.

“I can confidently say that we have a very good chance tomorrow in Geneva to find a common denominator and mark a path forward,” Lavrov added.

A conflicting message came from Lavrov’s deputy, Gennady Gatilov, who tweeted early Saturday that experts in Geneva had thus far failed to agree to the wording of a final document on Syria because “the Western partners want to determine the political process themselves.”

In an editorial published Saturday in Swiss newspaper Le Temps, Annan said that as the “conflict is between Syrians, it is up to the Syrians to resolve it.

“But it would be naive to think that they can, on their own, end the violence now and engage in a meaningful political process,” said the former UN chief, who had conspicuously left Iran and Saudi Arabia off the Geneva guest list.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights warned of a “catastrophic humanitarian situation” in besieged Douma, which “has been subjected to a fierce military campaign since June 21.”

Violence has killed “scores and wounded hundreds” there since regime forces escalated attacks on the outlying suburb of Damascus, the group said.

“More than 100 families remain in the town, unable to flee and forced to take refuge in shelters,” it said.

An explosion also rocked the Qaboon district of Damascus on Saturday and another blast hit the country’s second city Aleppo in the north. A further blast hit an oil pipeline in a rebel-held area of the eastern province of Deir Ezzor.

The latest violence came a day after 73 people were killed nationwide, among them 23 regime troops.

– © AFP, 2012

Syrian violence has worsened since ceasefire, says UN >

Read next:

Comments (30 Comments)

  • Sickening pictures of dead women/children in the papers today..
    That is not fighting rebels or terrorists, its genocide.
    His administration needs to be taken out and a peace force put on the ground until they elect their own government.
    Shame on Russia & China.

    Reply
  • old Nokia likes to criticize the western media but he posts a link to salon which uses quotes from fox news and the Washington post! Both of which are western media! And he asks us to dig deeper for what’s going on! As I said before he is a joke.

    Reply
  • Bullshit. This is not genocide. This is civil war. Genocide is a bullshit word which is much overused by western interests in order to justify colonial interference.

    Reply
    • The legal definition of genocide?(Including?Discussion?and?Key terms)The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:1) the?mental element,?meaning the?”intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”, and2) the?physical element?which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include?both elements?to be called “genocide.”Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.Excerpt from the?Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide?(For full text click here)”Article II:??In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;?(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;?(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;?(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;?(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.Article III:??The following acts shall be punishable:(a) Genocide;?(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;?(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;(d) Attempt to commit genocide;?(e) Complicity in genocide. “

      Reply
    • No doubt Gingerman and Old Nokia Charger and their fellow travellers were making the same sort of off-the-menu utterances when Srebrenica and Rwanda were going down. That’s the problem with pro-active military humanitarian interventions, even when they succeed the usual suspects will come out and insist there was clearly no need for them in the first place and it was all to do with imperialist this and imperialist that…

      Reply
    • fellow travellers…

      When right-wingers say they want to bomb a country in order to ‘save’ it I get suspicious.

      I’m thoughtful, so it comes with the territory.

      Reply
    • But when a dictator says the same thing, you just sit back and watch it for the lulz? Classy.

      Try thinking much harder, for longer.

      Reply
    • But when a dictator says the same thing, you just sit back and watch it for the lulz?

      Normally I wouldn’t respond to a comment like that, but I’ll go with this for now.

      Do you think NATO’s enthusiasm for intervention is down to an inherent sense of altruism on their part?

      Reply
    • NATO’s interests aren’t really what matters here, though, is it? The Syrian people’s interests are what matter. And right now, they’re getting seven shades of sh1t kicked out of them by the very chap that you’d be happy to leave at it, given that he has the biggest stick in that town at the moment (with the connivance of the Russians, Chinese and Iranians). Although such is the paucity of your understanding of international affairs, and the lazy and jaundiced view you clearly to take to such issues, that we should probably not expect any more from the usual coterie of anti-west types. Richard Boyd Barrett for example is suddenly very quiet about the Middle East. You’d have to wonder if he think the Middle East stops at the border of the West Bank?

      I will tell you this though. It would be in all our interests if the Middle East was run in the same way Turkey was run – Muslim and Democratic. Hopefully Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and all the rest will follow in that vein soon enough. And if that means NATO having to act, and even if the NATO govts, get some kind of kickback out of it, that’s fine by me too. Because it’s not yours or mine lives on the line, and its not yours or my kids getting their heads bashed in with rifle butts, and all that only because they want you and I have – a vote and a say in how their own country is run.

      Reply
    • But do you think NATO’s enthusiasm for intervention is down to an inherent sense of altruism on their part?

      Reply
    • In the main no, but why should it bother you what their interests are, if the RESULT is a Syrian people enjoying the very self-determination that you do?

      Reply
    • Because that is a profoundly unlikely result.

      Reply
    • So you’d rather them not have a chance at it at all? You’re positively over flowing with the milk of human kindness, you are. Very sad.

      Reply
  • I am aware there is a legal definition. My problem is that facts are frequently fashioned to tick the genocide boxes you tediously cut and pasted

    Reply
  • Russia insists that Assad’s fate “must be decided within the framework of a Syrian dialogue by the Syrian people themselves.”

    Yes, that is the only way. Enough of this imperialist meddling.

    The CIA should stop arming terrorists on Syria’s border with Turkey. God, you’d nearly think the US has a dog in this race and isn’t merely good Samaritan coming to the Syrian people’s aid!

    http://open.salon.com/blog/stuartbramhall/2012/06/25/its_official_cia_arming_syrian_rebels

    Reply
  • Daniel R 30/06/12 #

    Syrians revolt against brutal dictator, The West sees the opportunity for regional control through a puppet government to exploit oil reserves. It’s that simple. Annan and Clinton couldn’t give two shits about children dying they’re members of the elite looking to gain something out if this.

    Reply
    • You’re absolutely right, but I think there’s a bit more to it than the ‘Syrian people’ revolting. Assad has a fairly substantial level of support by all accounts. I’m not certain civil war is the most accurate term to describe what’s going on but it’s certainly more accurate than the media narrative: that one coherent, homogeneous group have risen up against Assad.

      There are lots of people fighting for different reasons and all sides have committed some horrific crimes.

      I predict a torrent of red thumbs from those who prefer the more satisfying ‘good guys v bad guys’ Hollywood narrative. I’d encourage you to look into it a bit further, that is if the truth matters to you.

      Reply
    • And what, no mention of China, Russia or Iran in all of this? Odd that.

      Reply
    • And what, no mention of China, Russia or Iran in all of this? Odd that.

      Well, it’s obvious enough I’d have thought. Those three countries are – like all political actors including NATO and the GCC states – seeking to protect their own geopolitical interests.

      NATO and GCC states want regime change in Damascus because that is in the interests of the ruling classes in those countries. The Chinese, Russian, and Iranian ruling classes prefer the status quo.

      The ‘Syrian people’ don’t come into it as far as these guys (and they are mostly guys) are concerned.

      The naivety of those who think the ‘international community’ (*snort*) is trying to save lives in Syria is touching indeed.

      Reply
    • If the US gets its way and implements regime change in Syria, they won’t stop. Next the US military industrial congressional complex will seek regime change in Iran. After that, who knows?

      Reply
    • Sure, Paul. This is to a large extent about isolating Iran.

      Reply
    • And if all the regimes changed end up as self-determining democracies, what’s the problem that NATO had a had in it? Your tired old hat would make sense if they were sticking in their own brutal dictators, but that’s not been the case though in the last 10 years? Iraq – Elections. Afghanistan – Elections. Libya – Elections (next week, deferred from June). Sure, the elections mightn’t be as polished as ours, but they are a VAST improvement, and far cry from what which went before. And that’s an indisputable fact.

      Reply
    • I don’t share your fetish for showpiece elections. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are in a huge mess. I doubt you would dare visit any of them.

      But that egg had to be smashed so that the elections box could be ticked and Western liberal dolts could sleep easier.

      Reply
    • I’ll take showpiece elections over what you’re offering:

      - Saddam still in power butchering his people, as he sees fit.
      - The Taleban still in power, keeping a whole nation in the dark ages (and butchering girl children for going to school – the bloody cheek).
      - Ghadafi in power, and keeping a whole nation on its knees, butchering them as he sees fit.
      - Assad in power, butchering his people, as he sees fit.

      And no, I wouldn’t visit them now, you’re dead right. But I certainly wouldn’t have been in a hurry to visit them when they had their despots on the go either. Maybe you would have. Maybe you’re the one with the fetish – for the ‘hard’ men of old, doing what needs to be done to keep their version of order on the go. I don’t know, you tell us.

      Give those countries 10 years or so and see how they’re fixed. It’s not like we covered ourselves in glory either when we broke free of British rule, now is it?

      I’ll tell you what is true: There’s more hope now in the Middle East that than there ever was under what you seem to prefer – genocidally inclined dictators.

      Reply
  • Kofi conscience is getting the better of him which the Americans will not be happy about.Refreshing to see a top man thinking with his heart for a change.

    Reply

Add New Comment