An image grab released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network on Thursday.
Speaking at the start of a special UN General Assembly session on the Syrian crisis, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the reported massacre at al-Qubeir on Wednesday and said Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime had lost all legitimacy.
Ban's comments, the harshest yet we've heard from New York, came as reports were emerging that at least 78 people, including children, were killed in this tiny farming village outside the city of Hama.
Ban's words, together with the determination with which the Arab League Secretary-General Nabil al-Arabi described the horrors taking place in Syria over the past months, and the dry report by UN special envoy Kofi Annan in describing how Assad ignored his six-point plan, seemed momentarily to bring hope that the United Nations was going not only to talk, but to make a militant decision to put an end to the slaughter in Syria.
But none of the speakers demanded intervention by force. On the contrary, the Arab League secretary-general stressed that organization's opposition to military intervention in Syria. Without such support, with NATO opposed to military action and considering Russia's stance, the military option is a nonstarter.
What is left is the diplomatic option, which in practical terms means persuading Russia to at least formally announce its agreement that Assad's regime should fall, so that Assad will begin the process of handing over power.
Russia released a few declarations that could herald a change - among them a statement by President Vladimir Putin last Friday. "We are neither for Assad nor for his opponents. We would like to achieve a situation when violence would be stopped and a large-scale civil war prevented. That is our political goal in Syria."
The realization that regime change in Syria goes through Moscow is not earth-shaking news, but so far Western countries and Arab countries, and particularly the United States, have made do with loud rebukes directed toward Russia.
But now Western tactics seem poised to change from attacking Russia to taking it on as a partner. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to meet with Putin on Friday in Moscow to try to persuade him to sharpen his tone toward Assad. U.S. President Barack Obama is to meet with Putin in Mexico in 10 days, where discussion is expected to extend to both Syria and Iran.
The Mexico talks, like the talks with Clinton in Moscow, are characterized as "discussion of the post-Assad period" - as if Assad is already prepared to step down.
Western diplomatic figures said on Thursday that Kofi Annan is going to suggest - with U.S. agreement - a "contact group" with the Syrian regime, to include Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States, as well as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The purpose of the group would not be to just hold futile talks with Assad, but to use group pressure to make clear to Russia that it stands to lose its influence in the Middle East if it does not conform to group consensus.
It is not clear whether Russia will take part in the group, which seems more like a pressure group on Russia than on Syria. However, it will be hard for Russia to refuse when the group's declared goal is to implement the Annan plan, for which Russia has declared its support.
The problem is the assumption of the Arab countries and the West that all that is needed for Assad to step down is for Russia to agree that he do so, as was the case in Yemen. But this assumption has no basis. Will Russia's change of stance frighten Assad into leaving? So far Assad has operated more according to the Muammar Gadhafi or the Saddam Hussein model - not to that of the ousted Yemeni president.
And the more critical question, which might be the reason Russia is in no hurry to push Assad out, is to whom exactly will Assad hand over the reins? To the fractured military or political opposition?
To that, neither Obama nor Arabi have an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment