Pages

Showing posts with label Kofi Annan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kofi Annan. Show all posts

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Lakhdar Brahimi: A fact, a buzz and a whisper

Kofi Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi and Mokhtar Lamani

THE FACT: Joint UN-Arab League troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi will Friday update the UN Security Council on the situation in Syria.
THE BUZZ: Brahimi hopes to be mandated as a UN envoy without any official link to the Arab League.
THE WHISPER: Brahimi will Friday do a Kofi Annan and be relieved by his deputy Mokhtar Lamani.
Brahimi, who is expected to offer the Security Council another bleak Syria report on Friday, reportedly feels the Arab League’s recognition of the Syrian opposition has undermined his role as a joint mediator.
"The joint special representative feels the Arab League approach makes it difficult for him to carry out his mandate," a diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"He feels that it would be best to be associated only with the United Nations at this point to ensure his neutrality."
There have been rumors circulating for weeks that Brahimi might resign, though diplomats told Reuters his preference was to remain involved in Syrian peace efforts through the United Nations, an organization he has worked with for decades.
His predecessor, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, resigned last August in frustration at the inability of the Security Council to unite behind his calls for an end to the violence and a peaceful political transition
The Syrian Opposition Coalition, recognized by the Arab League as the sole representative for Syria, attended the Arab summit and opened its first embassy in Doha last month in a diplomatic blow to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Al-Akhbar journalist Radwan Mortada quotes unnamed sources as saying Brahimi’s resignation at Friday’s closed session of the Security Council “is now inevitable.” And Brahimi’s deputy Mokhtar Lamani would most likely take over the Syria peace-brokering mission.
Distinguished Moroccan career diplomat Lamani currently heads Brahimi’s Damascus office.
A Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI, Canada, Ontario), Lamani served in 2006 as Special Representative of the Arab League in Iraq, where he tried to persuade its bitterly divided Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders to make peace. He failed and resigned in February 2007.
Mortada quotes extensively from a January 2007 think piece by al-Akhbar co-founder, the late Michel Samaha, blaming Lamani’s resignation then on feeble support from the Arab governments that hired him.
In his Jan. 22, 2007, resignation letter, a copy of which he gave to The Associated Press, Lamani said of the Iraqi leaders: "My only problem was their own relations with each other, their strong feeling that each is a victim of the other."
He also faulted the Arab League member-states, telling AP they did not give Iraq "the necessary priority or seriousness." Arab governments were so detached from Iraq that it was "as if it were on the moon," he said.

Monday, 3 September 2012

Lakhdar Brahimi and Syria’s Rivers of Blood

Death counts from the Syrian Shuhada site

A total of 12,819 Syrians – 1,126 of them children and 1,244 females – were killed on Kofi Annan’s watch during his Syria troubleshooting mission between April 12 and August 19 this year.
The big question is how many more Syrian men, women and children will die before his successor Lakhdar Brahimi fails or succeeds in his role as new UN-Arab League envoy on Syria.
The Syrian Revolution Data Base, Syrian Shuhada (Syrian Martyrs), referred to by some branches of the United Nations, puts at 29,396 the total number of civilians and military killed in the 534-day Syria bloodbath up to September 1st.
Of these, 6,438 Syrians – or almost 22 percent of the total -- were killed in the month of August alone.
The main reason the numbers by Syrian Shuhada are high is because it counts unidentified bodies.
So in terms of per capita ratio, the total Syria death toll between mid-March 2011 and end-August 2012 translates to about 203,000 Russians or 433,000 Americans!
As he takes up his post, Brahimi has given a deeply pessimistic view of the task ahead of him.
He tells Lyse Doucet, Chief International Correspondent, BBC News, in an exclusive interview in New York:
“I’m coming into this job with my eyes open, and no illusions. I know how difficult it is -- how nearly impossible. I can’t say impossible -- [it is] nearly impossible.”
Brahimi admitted some trepidation about his new mission, saying he could understand those frustrated with the lack of international action in Syria.
“I'm scared of the weight of responsibility. People are already saying people are dying and what are you doing?
“And we are not doing much. That in itself is a terrible weight.”
Brahimi said he had so far failed to see “any cracks” in the “brick wall” that had defeated Annan -- an “intransigent” Syrian government, escalating rebel violence and a paralyzed UN Security Council, where China and Russia have vetoed several resolutions aimed at putting pressure on Damascus.
 A growing number of Syrians have fled abroad to escape the conflict.
He said he would keep Annan's six-point peace plan -- now seen by many as irrelevant -- in his “tool box” for possible adaptation, but admitted he “had ideas, but no plan yet,” apart from talking to as many people as possible.
Addressing the Syrian government, he said the need for political change in Syria was “fundamental and urgent,” but -- as he has previously -- refused to be drawn on whether President Assad should step down, as the opposition and several Western leaders are demanding.
“Change cannot be cosmetic,” he said. “There will be a new order but I do not know who will be the people in the order. That’s for Syrians to decide.”
He also sought to keep a distance between himself and the rebels, who have criticized him for his cautious stance.
“Please remember I am not joining your movement,” he said. “I am working for two international organizations, the United Nations and the Arab League, and I do not speak the same language as you.”
Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, notes in his leader today that Annan, in his parting shots, took aim at President Assad and at Russia and China. “He asked the former to step aside and blamed the latter pair for stopping the Security Council from speaking with one voice.”
Charbel adds:
Brahimi was closely watching Annan’s mission. He was aware of the locked Syrian, Iranian and Russian doors. People familiar with his modus operandi say he won’t travel around like his predecessor carrying a peace plan abridged in points.
He won’t hurry to place his cards on the table. Above all, “he won’t offer food to those who feel satiated.”
Brahimi can’t impose a solution and won’t start promoting the outlines of one. Most probably, he will play for patience and anticipation.
He can’t mediate seriously before the two parties to the Syria conflict feel “hungry” – “hungry” for an exit, that is.
His role can’t start in earnest before the two adversaries realize their chance of a knockout win is implausible, impossible and prohibitively costly.
Maybe Brahimi is playing for weariness and despair creeping to the two rivals’ hearts.
The regime would concede that it can’t win back control of the whole country; that persisting in the confrontation compounds future risks to allies fighting on its side; that victory is beyond reach, even with sustained Iranian and Russian support.
The regime would conclude in that case that it must search for a way out, even if the expected medicine is bitter or debilitating.
Perhaps Brahimi is also betting on the opposition eventually concluding (1) that a triumph is impossible without external military intervention, which doesn’t seem in the cards or attractive to world powers capable of mounting one (2) or that the bloody clash has turned into one among the country’s components, when experience shows that infighting among components allows scoring points but precludes decisive blows (3) or that such a clash among components risks killing the country’s unity and territorial integrity first and foremost (4) or that a protracted showdown  risks turning Syria into a regional sectarian war theater, which the opposition shuns because it is fighting to build a new Syria whose components would coexist in a democratic, free and egalitarian state.
The aforesaid leads to the painful conclusion that for his mission to succeed Brahimi needs new rivers of blood, additional waves of refugees to neighboring countries and more gruesome massacres, devastated villages and shattered neighborhoods.
To succeed, Brahimi needs the two sides to give up hope of a knockout win and to feel “hungry” for a way out of the blood-soaked tunnel.
He also needs Vladimir Putin to acknowledge that his excessive reliance on the spoiler’s role risks isolating and seriously undermining Russia’s image and interests in the Arab and Islamic worlds and internationally.
Brahimi likewise needs Iran to recognize that it cannot safeguard its past decade’s surge and has to ponder such things as damage limitations, likely compensations and private regional consultations.
I know, Charbel concludes, mine are harsh words falling on the ears of those who lost their loved ones, their livelihoods and their dreams. But everything points to the cycle of violence mounting before Brahimi can start handing out wound dressings, guarantees and visions to new Syria’s components.

Saturday, 4 August 2012

Syria: Exit Annan, enter Lakhdar Brahimi?

Lakhdar Brahimi

I nominate former Algerian foreign minister and ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi to succeed Kofi Annan as troubleshooter for Syria.
Before giving my reasons for making the nomination, I solemnly declare that I have no inside information or tipoff from anybody and that no one asked for my opinion.
In fact, putting my unsolicited nomination in print is at odds with what I was taught by my three mass media mentors – namely, James Batal, an Amherst College graduate and a Neiman Fellow in Journalism from Harvard University; Tom Masterson, Beirut Bureau chief of The Associated Press; and Kamel Mroue, uncontested pioneer of the modern-day Lebanese press.
In initiating the saga of my journalism and publishing journey, all three used to focus on such classics as “dog bites man versus man bites dog,” the Five Ws in newsgathering and – above all -- the difference between objective news and personal opinion.
My excuse for putting forward in print Lakhdar Brahimi’s name to succeed Kofi Annan is that I am doing so as a blogger entitled to his personal opinion, and not as a journalist.
Annan, after tendering his resignation this week, would not speculate on who might replace him but sought to counter suggestions that with his departure, the peace effort was over.
“Let me say that the world is full of crazy people like me, so don’t be surprised if someone else decides to take it on,” Annan told reporters in Geneva.
Brahimi is not exactly one of the world’s crazy people and I don’t even know if UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby will throw his name into the hat.
What I know is that he has all the credentials as a peacemaker to take over where Annan left.
He has served as UN and Arab League diplomat, is a veteran conflict mediator and an expert in post-conflict reconstruction, brokered Lebanon’s 1989 Taef Agreement that involve Syria and is fluent in English, French and -- obviously but most importantly -- Arabic.
Like Annan, he is one of The Elders.
Chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The Elders is an independent group of global leaders who work together for peace and human rights. Nelson Mandela, who is not an active member of the group but remains an Honorary Elder, brought the group together in 2007.
The Elders are Martti Ahtisaari, Ela Bhatt, Lakhdar Brahim, Gro Brundtland, Fernando H. Cardoso, Jimmy Carter, Graça Machel, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu and Kofi Annan.
The Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was also an Honorary Elder, until her election to the Burmese parliament last April.
You can read biographies for Lakhdar Brahimi on Wikipedia and The Fondation Chirac or the U.S./Middle East Project, Inc. websites.
I chose this but from The Fondation Chirac:
Born in Algeria in 1934, he studied law and political science in Algeria and France. During the Algerian War of Independence (1956-1962), he was a representative of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) in Southeast Asia. At twenty-two, he represented the Algerian revolution in Jakarta. At the time, Indonesia’s President was Sukarno, one of the fathers of non-alignment and the struggle against colonialism.
From 1963 to 1970, Lakhdar Brahimi was the Permanent Representative to the League of Arab States in Cairo. Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 1971 to 1979, he then became the Diplomatic Advisor to the President of Algeria from 1982 to 1984 in Egypt and Sudan. Afterwards, he became Assistant Secretary General of the Arab League between 1984 and 1991.
In 1989 as Special Envoy of the Tripartite Committee of the Arab League in Lebanon, Brahimi successful negotiated the agreement that ended seventeen years of civil war: the Taef Agreement.
Algeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1991 to 1993, he was the UN Conference Rapporteur on Environment and Development in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.
In 1993, Lakhdar Brahimi embarked upon his second career in the UN, following Boutros Boutros Ghali’s proposal to make him his “special representative”. He was sent first to South Africa, where he led the United Nations’ Observer Mission from 1993 until Nelson Mandela’s election to power in 1994. Then he was sent to Haiti from 1994 to 1996. The last year, he was sent on UN missions for open or latent conflicts in Nigeria, Cameroon, Burundi, and Sudan. Finally, he was sent to Afghanistan from 1997 to 1999 and again in 2001. He led the panel that wrote the “Brahimi Report” on UN peacekeeping operations in 2000.
He is one of “The Elders”, a group of international leaders established in the early 21st century to promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world.

Monday, 23 July 2012

Saudi monarch now at daggers drawn with Assad


Saudi Arabia is now throwing its full weight behind the drive to rid Syria of President Bashar al-Assad.
King Abdullah
King Abdullah yesterday called a two-day emergency summit of Muslim nations in three weeks time to address “the dangers of fragmentation and seditions” they are facing.
Assumptions the planned August 14-15 summit is also linked to the Syria crisis were enhanced by another announcement from the Saudi monarch. He ordered the launch today of a nationwide fundraising campaign to help “our brothers in Syria.”
This is reminiscent of the mid-1980s, when Saudi public fund-raisers generated financial support for liberating Afghanistan from the Soviets.
Political analyst Sarkis Naoum, in his column this morning for Beirut’s independent daily an-Nahar, says Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia has “assumed the captaincy of Arab players backing the Syrian revolution politically as well as with arms, training and cash to help it topple Assad and his regime.”
The Kingdom’s motive he writes, “is not only to safeguard the interests, rights and freedoms of the majority of Syrians, but to face up to the challenge Iran is posing” to Saud Arabia’s Gulf and Arab partners after Iran made serious inroads in the Arab world’s heartland.
Naoum says insiders got wind last week of Saudi Arabia’s resolve and commitment to push Assad out when King Abdullah appointed Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States for 22 years, as the new chief of General Intelligence.
“And it is an open secret that Prince Bandar has been championing a face-off with Syria in Lebanon since at least 2005,” Naoum writes.
Saudi Arabia, in the eyes of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is “the most hostile country to Special Envoy Kofi Annan and his Syria mission,” according to a report published this morning in Hezbollah and Syria’s Lebanese mouthpiece al-Akhbar.
The report penned for al-Akhbar by journalist Nasser Sharara appears simultaneously on Syria’s state-run Champress website.
According to Sharara:
The relationship between Lavrov and Annan “is close-knit.”  When Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem once complained to Lavrov that Annan was not appreciating the Syrian regime’s goodwill initiatives, “Lavrov said: He (Annan) does nothing before consulting me first.”
Upholding the Annan mission is Lavrov’s brainchild. He believes the most hostile state to Annan and his Syria mission is Saudi Arabia. In many of his diplomatic contacts, Lavrov keeps asking: “Why doesn’t Riyadh receive Annan, albeit once?”
In his meetings with European Union ambassadors in Moscow, Lavrov cited three Syria-related Russian concerns: (1) Syria sliding to Muslim Brotherhood rule that would destabilize Central Asia (2) The empowerment of Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda members who are now threatening Algeria and the South African Development Community and (3) The safety of a 45,000-strong Russian community in Syria.
Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, quotes one of Vladimir Putin’s recent interlocutors as saying, “The Russian president acts as if the West and Turkey fell into the Syria crisis trap. He says the West and Turkey posture but are unable to intervene militarily; they also fail to mobilize the UN Security Council to remove Assad.”
The interlocutor – who also heard Putin say Moscow can’t accept the massacre or ejection of Syria’s minorities -- left with the impression Russia is set on continuing to take advantage of the entrapment of its opponents.
Charbel says, “Putin’s Russia hates Western human rights and welfare organizations. It doesn’t want to see the disease spreading and infecting its Muslims. China has similar concerns in this respect. Russia could be reminding the United States of the need to redraw zones of influence and address such pending issues as ballistic missile defense systems.
“Developments on the ground in Syria foretell the derailment of Russia’s exploitation of what it deems to be its detractors’ snare.
“Clearly, the Syrian regime is still able to fight. But it is no longer able to exit the tunnel.
“Happenings in Damascus and Aleppo may change the scene. Russia was asking the West to pay for a solution. Developments could yet force Russia to pay for a doorway. Russia could still discover she walked into a trap herself after losing a bet in Syria and alienating the Arab, Islamic and Western worlds.
“Iran in turn will ultimately discover the magnitude of the trap in which she fell. Her stand on the Syria crisis adds to her Arab, Islamic and international isolation. It also exposes her to risks in a region full of surprises.
“Having previously reaped the benefits of America’s Iraq entrapment, Iran may now have to pay the price of her ambush in Syria. And so does Hezbollah…”

Sunday, 22 July 2012

Syria: Provisional government is next big hot potato


A contested crossing point to Syria

France’s call for the speedy formation of a Syrian provisional government is a political hot potato for the Syrian opposition.
With Kofi Annan’s troubleshooting mission dead and buried, and internecine fighting raging across Syria, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Saturday:
Whatever its maneuvers, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is being condemned by its own courageous people.
We have been in contact with Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani and others to find a solution to the 16-month crisis in Syria.
We all agree the time has come to prepare the transition and the day after.
Time has come for the opposition to get going in order to take command of the country.
We look forward to the rapid formation of a provisional government, which should be representative of the diversity of Syrian society.
France fully supports the efforts of the Arab League in this direction
We are ready for any initiative, including the hosting of a ministerial meeting in Paris to consolidate the efforts of Arab countries in building the Syria of tomorrow.
Along with the European Union, we are also trying to provide help and necessary support to the increasing number of refugees, in cooperation with neighboring countries.
Annan’s plan called for a political “transitional government” in Damascus led by Syria and comprising both loyalist and opposition figures whereas a “provisional government” as proposed by France would be set up solely by the opposition.
As explained by Wikipedia, a “provisional government” is an emergency or interim government set up when a political void has been created by the collapse of a very large government… Provisional governments are generally unelected and tend to arise in association with or in the aftermath of civil or foreign wars.”
In addition to provisional governments established by European nations under Nazi occupation, Wikipedia lists some 20 other examples of provisional governments active in the 20th and 21st centuries.
It is still unclear if the Arab League’s Syria task group meeting in Doha tonight would endorse the idea of the Syrian opposition setting up a provisional government.
Represented on the Syria task group, in addition to Elaraby, are Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Qatar and Oman.
The big question of course is whether the Syrian opposition groups can see eye to eye on a representative provisional government, its political program and lineup.
To their credit, the oppositions groups were able to endorse plans for a new democratic, pluralistic and civilian Syria at their two-day meeting earlier this month at Arab League headquarters in Cairo. (See my July 4 post, “Syria opposition thrashes out post-Assad roadmap”).
Advantages of the opposition’s umbrella group known as the Syrian National Council (SNC) making common cause with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCCs) to co-opt other opposition factions and grassroots activists and set up a Syrian Provisional Government (SPG) are many.
As the brainchild of France and the Arab League, I suppose SPG would, among other things:
  • be recognized upon declaration as legitimate representative of the Syrian people in most Western and Arab capitals.
  • be able to open offices in key world capitals to muster support for post-Assad Syria and solicit, coordinate and then apportion donor assistance.
  • create a credible vehicle for approaching other governments
  • demonstrate seriousness of planning, entice participation of Syria’s internal opposition, encourage defections and increase pressure on Assad
  • allow opposition leaderships to build unity and trust and gradually gel in a common political body.
  • provide international legal status to FSA combatants.
  • potentially dilute ethnic and sectarian sensitivities and interests.
By the way, I learned today that the most notable provisional government was the Russian Provisional Government in 1917.

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Annan, a dream merchant yet to hear Umm Qusay


Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, Gen. Robert Mood and Sergei Lavrov

After writing, reading, re-reading and mulling over my preceding post -- “Minutes of Assad-Annan new truce deal” -- I thought Kofi Annan’s title should be changed from Joint Special Envoy of the UN and Arab League for Syria to Joint Special Envoy of the Russian Federation and Islamic Republic of Iran for bailing out Bashar al-Assad.
Judging from editorial comments in the regional press, my opinion is shared by many.
I counted at least six columnists today questioning Annan’s approach, job performance and mandate.
One of them, Farmaz Hussein, writing for the first daily Arab independent on-line newspaper Elaph, wonders bluntly: “Is Annan a diplomat or an opportunist?”
Another, Hassan Haidar, writing for the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, believes “Annan overstepped his mandate.”
A third, Rajeh el-Khoury, writing for Lebanon’s independent newspaper an-Nahar, accuses the special envoy of closing his eyes to the “step by step killings” in Syria.
The 1994 Rwandan genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre occurred on the former UN secretary-general’s watch, Farmaz Hussein recalls. “And had Annan had his way in 2003, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would have been oppressing the Iraqi people to this day.”
Also writing for Elaph, Nohad Ismail says, “Absurd maneuvers and sterile meetings will lead Annan nowhere. He will ultimately discover that he was led to play the role of a halfwit duped by a cunning tyrant sitting in Damascus.
“Annan was wrong to call on Assad and then fly to Tehran and Baghdad, the two capitals supportive of the dictatorship in Syria and hostile to the Syrian people’s revolution. He failed to show up at the (Friends of Syria) conference in Geneva, but was eager to visit conspirators against the Syrian people.”
Ismail says, “Annan would have done much better to go to disaster areas in Idlib, Rastan, Deraa, Hama and Deir al-Zor, among others.  He would have done much better to tour Syrian refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, if only to hear stories” like Umm Qusay’s.
“Umm Qusay” refers to a mother in Atarib, Syria, called Amina. She described in graphic detail to The Daily Telegraph’s Ruth Sherlock how government forces tied a rope around the leg of her disabled son Qusay, dragged him through the streets, beat him until unconscious and then shot him dead.
According to renowned political analyst Abdelwahhab Badrakhan, Annan wasn’t mourning his mission when he had a good cry in his recent interviews with France’s Le Monde and the UK’s Guardian. In effect, Badrakhan writes for al-Hayat, the special envoy was sobbing to win an extension of his mandate.
“Oddly, Annan blames his failure on the Friends of Syria, who – unlike Russia and Syria’s regime – didn’t lend him a hand. He thought he only lacked Iran’s help to succeed.
“Annan isn’t naïve. But he overlooks the specifics -- that he embarked on a deactivated task and that his helpers controlled his steps before he set out. The mere fact that Assad hastens to defend Annan and rule out his failure should make clear to the joint special envoy of the UN and Arab League that he is playing into the regime’s hands as a dream merchant.”

Badrakhan says Annan is daydreaming if he thinks he can sell the Syrian people a hollow political process cobbled together by Assad, Russia’s Sergei Lavrov and Iran’s Qassem Soleimani. Were all the Syrian people’s sacrifices made to win a dialogue with a killer regime on how best to keep it in place?
An-Nahar’s Rajeh el-Khoury describes as “scandalous” Annan’s entreaties at his latest meeting with Assad in Damascus -- “Mr. President, let’s try again, let’s agree a mechanism for a ceasefire starting with any one of the (Syrian) hotspots. We can then duplicate it in another… At the same time, we would ask for a goodwill gesture on your part in the chosen area. Let’s try applying this (phased ceasefire) approach step by step.”
Al-Hayat’s Hassan Haidar in turn says, “Notwithstanding Annan’s excuses for flying to Tehran and declaring Iran can play a ‘positive role’ in resolving Syria’s deepening crisis, the trip was a departure from his mandate, which is based on the Arab League roadmap for a transition in Syria that was endorsed by the UN Security Council. His shuttles have turned into time wasting pending military and political developments and the fate of the UN observer mission, which is already on its deathbed.
“The Syrian National Council’s talks in Moscow yesterday confirmed that Annan’s improvisations are leading nowhere. Moscow, as the Syrian opposition found out, is not yielding an inch on its support of Assad. So how does Annan expect Iran, which is up to its ears in defending Damascus’ ruler, to play a ‘positive role’ in anything to do with a political transition meant to lead to regime change?
“…Even if some believe the state of flux will persist at least until after the U.S. elections, thus justifying the need for some sort of go-between, the UN and League of Arab States are called upon to restrain their joint envoy and order him to stop breaching the terms of his mandate.”

Useful links:


Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Minutes of Assad-Annan new truce deal


Add caption

Known as Syria’s mouthpiece, Beirut’s daily al-Akhbar has a proven record of privileged access to authoritative news and views from Damascus.
Today, the paper’s front-page screamer consists of four words: “The Assad-Annan agreement.”
Though bylined Jean Aziz, the front-page lead actually highlights what I deem to be the minutes of the meeting between UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan and President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on Monday, July 9.
Jean Aziz is a Lebanese socio-political activist, journalist, university professor and talk show host. He is now close to Michel Aoun, Christian leader of Lebanon’s Free Patriotic Movement and a maverick ally of both Syria and Hezbollah.
Here is what I believe was passed on to Aziz by Damascus:
****
The meeting between President Assad and UN Special Envoy Annan lasted an hour and a half.
The atmosphere was relaxed. There was no mention of the UN mission’s failure or of the tough talk by the (July 6 “Friends of Syria”) conference in Paris. Both sides spoke of the situation on the ground “in order to put in place a specific mechanism for a ceasefire” and of the coveted political dialogue between the Syrian government and its opponents.
Jean Aziz
The meeting between President Assad and Special Envoy Annan, both renowned to be courteous was in the presence of Gen. Robert Mood, head of UNSMIS, and Martin Griffith, head of the UN mission in Syria.
Annan started the conversation by saying he had been following the Syrian president’s recent interviews with the German TV network (ARD) and Turkey’s Gumhuriyet daily, remarking: “It seems, Mr. President, you’ve been increasing your media exposure of late.”
Assad replied with a smile on his face: “That’s true. The reason is twofold. One, I am the type of person who prefers to act then talk. Two, I noticed lately there is an almost total blackout on the facts and a good deal of manipulation and distortion of realities and events. That’s why I thought it was my duty to speak up.”
Annan grasped the hint and said he was aware of the difference between happenings on the ground and fictional scenarios and concocted impressions being broadcast.
Annan then started his official presentation, saying: “Mr. President, I thought it was my duty after the (June 30 “Action Group on Syria”) conference we held in Geneva, and in the countdown to my July 20-21 briefing of the UN Security Council, to meet with you and update you on what we did and what we need to follow through.”
It was obvious from his opening sentence that Annan did not want to mention the Paris conference from far or near. No did he wish to dwell on the post-Paris hype.
Annan went further, seizing the opportunity to reiterate his and the UN’s adherence to his six-point plan. He explicitly told his presidential host the Geneva conference declaration did no more than endorse his six-point initiative, adding: “I am sure you know, Mr. President, that what actually took place in Geneva does not tally with the ensuing interpretations and explanations that sought to distort and expound on what was approved at the conference.”
The implication is that Annan was fully endorsing the post-Geneva Russian stand vis-à-vis the Western allies’ position.
Annan then moved on to talk about conditions on the ground in Syria and about the UN observer mission, dwelling on the tragic situation in some areas and thus the urgency of implementing his initiative’s key point – namely, the cessation of violence.
Assad was considerate and totally receptive, offering a brief recap of his guest’s mission since it went into force on April 12. He recounted how the (government’s) armed forces complied with the ceasefire for 24 hours until the insurgents, as attested in the UN observers’ reports, breached it.
During Assad’s recap, Gen. Mood was seen nodding his head approvingly more than once.
Annan took stock of Assad’s words, saying there was every reason to renew the drive for a ceasefire – particularly that the explosive situation in Syria risked spilling over to other countries. He specifically mentioned a likely spillover to Lebanon.
“So let’s try again, let’s agree a mechanism for a ceasefire starting with any one of the (Syrian) hotspots. We can then duplicate it in another,” Annan suggested.
Once again, Assad proved fully amenable before asking his guests: “We are a state, government and official authority, which means when we give you our word on a ceasefire we become accountable to you. But who will you be negotiating with on the other side?”
At this point, Annan began answering together with Gen. Mood.
The pair explained that UN observers were able in the course of their mission to make a semi-comprehensive appraisal of the armed groups.
Annan and Mood said, “We at least got to know the major groups. We got to know their chiefs. True, they don’t have a unified command or a clear command structure. Their armed chaos is massive. But we got to know their key figures. That’s why we believe we can work and proceed with them step by step.”
Again, it was clear both men now describe regime opponents as “the armed opposition.”
Annan was reminded at this point how armed insurgents foiled earlier ceasefire attempts, chiefly in Homs.
“Not long ago,” Annan was told, “ your observers witnessed how some armed elements tried leaving Homs’ al-Khalidiya neighborhood to hand in their weapons and surrender. Other rebels stopped them from this. Your observers also saw first-hand how armed insurgents frustrated attempts to evacuate some citizens trapped in Homs’ Dayyan and Hamidiya neighborhoods.”
Griffith corroborated this as an eyewitness himself.
The UN delegates did not dispute their host’s remarks. But Annan went on to state: “Nevertheless, the situation being what it is, let’s try again. Our observers would reach an agreement with the armed groups in the area where we choose to start. At the same time, we would ask for a goodwill gesture on your part in the chosen area. The gesture would see you observe a unilateral ceasefire in the designated area, of say four hours, pending the mutual ceasefire’s entry into force.”
Here, Annan was reminded that the ceasefire provision in his six-point plan was contingent on the cessation of the funding of, and smuggling of arms to, the opposition.
The UN envoy listened carefully for a few seconds until he was asked bluntly: “What do you think of U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s talks two days ago about the prospects of a ‘catastrophic assault’ on government forces by the armed groups? Is that consistent with your (troubleshooting) mission?”
Annan paused for a few seconds before replying, “No, of course not. This is dangerous talk. But let’s try, let’s try applying this (phased ceasefire) approach step by step.”
As regards a timetable for this process, both sides exchanged various proposals and views before settling on a three-month timeline to see it through, beginning with the execution of the first step. Concomitantly, the two sides would issue a joint progress report every fortnight.
Annan then moved on to the matter of political dialogue between the government and the opposition in a tone vacillating between realism and skepticism.
The UN envoy asked Assad, “Should we make progress on the security front, would you be able to name your representative for the negotiations with the opposition – a sort of liaison officer to see through the second chapter of the UN mission?”
Dr. Ali Haidar
Assad smiled and replied instantaneously: “Before you even asked, and since formation of the current government, we decided on the person to be in charge of this matter. He is our minister of state for national reconciliation affairs, Dr. Ali Haidar.”
When Annan wanted to know more about Dr. Haidar, Assad explained the reasons for his selection, saying: “One, because he is not from the loyalist camp. Two, he is effectively from the opposition and heads a credible opposition party. Three, he was injured during the events and his son was killed by armed rebels. But he was able to overcome all this and accept the job of working for a genuine national reconciliation.”
Annan remarked, “But we would have preferred the nomination of someone closer to you -- someone who would be in direct contact with you to bring the dialogue process to completion.”
Assad smiled again, telling Annan: “Dr. Haidar and I shared adjoining desks throughout my university years specializing in ophthalmology. Do you want someone closer than that? Anyway, I think your greater difficulty will be on the other side, not on ours. Will you be able to get a name to represent the opposition?”
Annan couldn’t help chuckling before saying, “I am certainly aware of the difficulty. I saw them (the opposition groups) at their last conference in Cairo.”
The official meeting ended there. But while preparing to take leave, Annan asked his host, “How long you think can this crisis last?”
Assad: “So long as (…) funds them” -- (a possible reference to Qatar).
Annan was not taken aback by Assad’s answer but wondered: “You think they’re doing all the funding?”
Assad: “They’re doing a lot of things in the region. They believe they can lead the Arab world now and in future.”
Annan quipped, “But it seems they lack the number of citizens to do that.”

Monday, 2 July 2012

Syria: Extra year of Annan as global zookeeper





My first reaction on hearing Kofi Annan’s press briefing after Saturday’s meeting of the “Action Group on Syria” was that the UN-Arab League special envoy to Syria has just given himself a one-year job as “Syria traffic warden.”
Writing in a somewhat similar sarcastic vein, George Semaan, a former editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat, today suggests “Annan’s mission will be kept alive so long as there remains living souls in Syria.”
What was required of the Action Group meeting, he writes, “was to avoid pronouncing the mission dead. Hence the escape forward and a pseudo-agreement on a declamation that was ambiguous in its wording but clear in its spirit.
“The aim was to allow all participants – except the Syrians of course -- to interpret the declamation whimsically to match their avowed positions and respective links with the protagonists.”
Semaan says, “Annan’s mission is no longer tied to a timetable. His mandate won’t be ending in mid-month. The new plan gives him a year or more to go through the roadmap and the transition…
“The deliberate ambiguity in the declamation gives a leeway to all the sides. In particular, it gives Russia and the United States extra time. The important thing was to keep the political option as the only one on the table…
“The policies of ‘gaining time’ and ‘constructive ambiguity’ allowed the major players to reach an understanding in Geneva.
“But the Syrian sides’ positions can’t afford further ‘destructive clarity.’ Neither is President Assad’s ‘eclipse’ within reach nor can his adversaries sit down with his puppets. The revolution was meant to throw him out, so how can (insurrectionists) now risk uplifting him and his regime? It’s probably too late to envisage a solution like in Egypt or Yemen…”
In the opinion of Egyptian talk show host and columnist Imad Adeeb, “Short of an under-the-counter deal between all the delegations and the one from Russia, the outcome of the (Geneva) meeting is ‘inconsequential’ and ‘vague.’ Like water, it has no taste, color or odor but simply boosts killings and massacres…
“Washington has no preoccupation other than the presidential elections in November… the European Union is licking its wounds and laden with the debts of Greece and Spain… Beijing and Moscow are meantime playing the role of a skilled opportunist waiting for the right time to sacrifice the Assad regime in return for winning international guarantees that its replacement in Damascus would safeguard his interests.”
Fascinatingly, remarks Adeeb, the Geneva meeting’s closing statement “is equivocal. The Syrian opposition sees it as politically catastrophic and a license for prolonging killings and massacres. The UN perceives it as a positive step. Mrs. Clinton claims it clearly outlines the shape of the post-Assad regime. The Assad regime feels, without explicitly admitting, it won a minimum six-month extension to its political life.”
Asking, “Now what?” in his leader today, Tariq Alhomayed, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, writes: “The answer is simple – there is no political solution on the horizon…
“The Geneva conference is not the be-all and end-all of the crisis. It is not a loss for the Syrian revolution. It is proof that what the revolutionaries do on the ground is what makes the difference. Consequently, it is imperative to deem the Geneva conference a non-event and continue arming the Syrian opposition...”
Mulling over “an extra year for Annan,” brilliant Lebanese writer and columnist Samir Atallah writes:
“Annan’s (success) chances are still below 10 percent. They shot so high because the polar Bear decided to send Sergei Lavrov to Geneva with a ‘yes’ shackled by a thousand conditions. China in turn chose to doze off on her pillow.
“Who knows? Maybe 20,000 deaths would budge the Bear or stir the Dragon… Maybe I hastened as well to give vent to my feelings and criticize the man whose friends call ‘Kofi.’
“Problem is tragic events have left the world numb. It’s a world of Bears, Dragons and Elephants who do not want to upset the Lion (Arabic for Assad).”