This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
This week foreign leaders, including Secretary of State John Kerry, will be meeting in Geneva to discuss peace and how to get there in Syria.
Labels: foreign policy
posted by Ms. Aby @ 8:47 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
45 Comments:
My hope, as well as the hope of many others around the world, is that much progress will be made in Montreux and Geneva this week toward achieving peace in Syria. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated, "Syrians must come together to save their country, protect their children and find a peaceful path to a better future" (1). This three-year civil war has been global news from quite some time and caused international tensions to rise. How nice it would be to reach a lasting agreement supported by both sides. Unfortunately, I don’t foresee this happening any time in the very near future, definitely not this week. The pre-Geneva meeting in Montreux, which was to outline a political road map that will lead to the exit of President Assad, got off to a rough start. It was the first time the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition members were in the same room since the war began. Both sides were a little fiery. “Defiant speeches from the regime of Bashar Assad and from the Western-backed opposition, making it clear that any political resolution to the crisis which has claimed more than 130,000 lives is going to be hard-won.” (2). I would define success as any step that brings Syria closer to peace, even if it is a very small one. Just getting both sides to participate in the peace talks was a small victory in itself. Both sides would favor peace but neither wants to negotiate on the others terms, causing a gridlock. And though the talks are meant to bring peace, there is a possibility that they could do the opposite. “While the two sides came to Switzerland ostensibly to work toward the implementation of a peace framework laid out previously in Geneva by the U.S., Russia and the U.N., they still have huge differences of opinion in how that should be accomplished.” (2). To conclude, I am hoping for a lot to be accomplished this week, but I am not expecting a lot. Just because a war ends, doesn’t necessarily mean there is peace. It will take time and I expect that negotiations will continue for a while.
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
2)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-peace-talks-kick-off-in-switzerland/
The conflict in Syria has torn the country apart. The civil war has left over 100,000 dead and over a million homeless (1). This conflict has also spilled over into neighboring countries, and has strained relations with other countries. Due to the potential for a global conflict in this situation, a peace talk has been arranged in Switzerland. As nice as it would be for the peace talk to solve this conflict, unless there is a major change on either side I find this unlikely. The UN has attempted a ceasefire in Syria during 2012 which failed miserably because neither side could resist killing each other (2). To make problems even worse, both sides are refusing to budge on the future of the government. The opposition’s peace terms include Assad stepping down, claiming “He lost the legitimacy to govern when he crushed the once-peaceful protest movement against his regime” (3). This side is supported by the US, and John Kerry said “There is no way - no way possible in the imagination - that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain the legitimacy to govern” (3). However, the Syrian government has issued a statement saying “There will be no transfer of power and President Bashar Assad is staying” (3). These opposite terms make it unlikely that an end is in sight for this war. The first few days of the talks were less that encouraging as well. Both sides showed little politeness to the other, and the government allegedly called the opposition traitors and implied that the other countries backing them bore responsibility for many deaths during the war (2). Statements such as these are very frightening, because they make it more likely this will become a global conflict. As much as I would like to hope these peace talks will end the war, I find it unlikely. My main hope is no outside countries are pulled into this war.
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference_n_4643331.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-peace-talks-stuck-over-assads-future/2014/01/22/dfc50d52-8397-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html?tid=auto_complete
My prediction for the outcome of the Syrian peace talks is a dim one. I don't necessarily believe that these talks will be a "failure", but I do believe that these talks will fail to achieve what either side wishes to accomplish. This is my belief because a.)both sides don't even share the same goal, and b.) Syria has already stated that they will refuse to comply with the US's primary objective, to remove President Bashar Assad from office. With the facts being the way they are, I can't see a successful conclusion in the future.
When I speak of "sides", I am talking about the Western nations such as the US, and then the nations of Syria, Russia, and Iran. There is a clear divide when it comes to the objective of these talks. One of Syria's greatest allies, Iran, was uninvited from the talks in order to get the US-backed Syrian National Coalition (SNC) to attend (1). This has already thrown a monkey wrench into the negotiations, seeing as how a big player is now absent from the game. Also the fact that both the SNC and Assad's delegates claim to speak for the Syrian people is complicating any hope of negotiations. The US believe's that the objective of these talks is to implement a plan for a “mutually agreed upon” transitional government in Syria, while Syria and Russia say that discussing a political transition away from Assad is out of the question (2). They would like to focus the talks on eliminating terrorism. The fact that the main objective of the US is a topic that the Syrian government refuses to even discuss is a red flag that makes any possibility of compromise seem impossible.
Beside the fact that these nations can't even agree to talk about the same thing, Syria has already commented on the US's main point. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of brutal force against his own citizens had robbed him of legitimacy, but Syrian diplomats argued that it is not the US's place to try to remove their president, and that that power lies with Syria and the people within it (3). It seems as though Syria has already made up its mind on this issue, and I don't think that the talks happening this week will change that.
With those facts in mind, it seems clear to me that these peace talks in Geneva will fail. That being said, the fact that diplomats from these nations made it to Switzerland is already a sign of progress. Yeah, that's cheesy, but it's ultimately true. The bar is pretty low, and hopefully the effort that has already been made will yield SOMETHING. I don't know what I would do if I were Kerry in this situation, but I wouldn't let peace in Syria ride on the success of these talks.
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-day-of-syria-peace-talks-end-on-fragile-ground/
(2) http://world.time.com/2014/01/22/as-syria-peace-talks-start-in-switzerland-5-things-you-need-to-know/
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference/4758147/
Once again there are peace talks going on in Geneva, Switzerland over Syria (3). “Once again” is the key phrase here. It is hard to get excited over peace talks if the violence continues or even escalates after it. Syria and the Middle East are a hot zone right now for political violence and civil unrest (1). Still, it is good to know that they are talking even if there is name-calling and a general animosity in the room (1). The big issue is that Western powers believe that Syria cannot be saved until President Assad is gone, while the Syrians say that is not going to happen (2). Its hard to believe that is the best solution we have, keep going through dictators until we find one that is not so bad. That is why it is hard to define the success of these peace talks as well. In a perfect world, success would be when the killing and torturing stops: kids have homes, people can go to work without fear of terrorist bombings, and people are just surprised at the thought of killings happening in their neighborhood. With this one peace talk, I think success might be the the calming of tensions and the beginning talk of a ceasefire. It probably will not happen, but it’s nice to imagine.
1.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-un-peace-talks-syrian-foreign-minister-calls-opposition-fighters-traitors-9076574.html
2.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25853175
3.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-baird-tells-syria-peace-talks-that-conflict-threatens-region-1.2506138
My prediction for the peace talks is that they will take quite a long while in order to be on stable grounds, and even then, the peace talks will become ineffective as some sort of attack will throw the entire effort out the window. It isn’t hard to see why I think this way. Walid al-Moallem, the speaker for the Syrian government, went on a 30-minute attacking terrorist and rebellious forces early in the talks, refusing to stand down when asked (nytimes). At the same time, the Syrian government has been attacked because it was a target for violent forces to attack, and that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had no claim to power and has to step down from any government involvement (bbc). If that wasn’t enough, Iran was blocked from participating in the peace talks by the United Nation (washingtonpost). This is a bad start. With protesters and insults crawling all over the Geneva peace talks, I’m not sure if any ceasefire will arise. If it does, it’s likely to be broken fast. Neither side seems willing to compromise, which means that the violence will continue. There may be a success, in the form of getting a treaty signed, but that’s a weak one, and no success can be measured if the decision is reversed by actions. In short, I predict that the treaty will be weak, ineffective, and may not actually arise at all. Any success will be short-lived, and the violence will resume. Just too many angry parties for this to go off without a hitch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-blames-us-for-blocking-it-from-syria-peace-talks-in-geneva/2014/01/21/53814508-8276-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
My prediction for the peace talks is that they will take quite a long while in order to be on stable grounds, and even then, the peace talks will become ineffective as some sort of attack will throw the entire effort out the window. It isn’t hard to see why I think this way. Walid al-Moallem, the speaker for the Syrian government, went on a 30-minute attacking terrorist and rebellious forces early in the talks, refusing to stand down when asked (nytimes). At the same time, the Syrian government has been attacked because it was a target for violent forces to attack, and that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had no claim to power and has to step down from any government involvement (bbc). If that wasn’t enough, Iran was blocked from participating in the peace talks by the United Nation (washingtonpost). This is a bad start. With protesters and insults crawling all over the Geneva peace talks, I’m not sure if any ceasefire will arise. If it does, it’s likely to be broken fast. Neither side seems willing to compromise, which means that the violence will continue. There may be a success, in the form of getting a treaty signed, but that’s a weak one, and no success can be measured if the decision is reversed by actions. In short, I predict that the treaty will be weak, ineffective, and may not actually arise at all. Any success will be short-lived, and the violence will resume. Just too many angry parties for this to go off without a hitch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-blames-us-for-blocking-it-from-syria-peace-talks-in-geneva/2014/01/21/53814508-8276-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
I hope that negotiations at Geneva will make progress towards peace, but my predictions are not too bright. Syria and the Middle East are nations where dictatorships and tyrants thrive, and democracy doesn't have a home. The history of the area doesn't provide much hope that anything remotely close to peace will happen. With a ruthless dictator like Assad, and a band of rebels just the same, it is hard for positive negotiations to take place. Over just the past 15 years or so alone, they have had tensions in their country, with the United States, the UN, Lebanon and Israel (1). I like that Kerry is taking a strong approach to dealing with Assad, but even if he does I still think Assad will do whatever he wants regardless of Kerry's threats (3). The talks were intense back and forth, including this statement from Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem; "some states attending the talks had "Syrian blood on their hands" and called the opposition "traitors" (2). Addressing Mr Kerry, he said: "No-one in the world has the right to confer or withdraw the legitimacy of a president, a constitution or a law, except for the Syrians themselves" (2). Success is keeping Syria out of military and violent conflict. It is preventing the murdering and killing of both rebels and the Government in whatever ways possible. However, in today's Middle East, this type of success just doesn't exist in most countries, including Syria.
1)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
3)http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/22/syria-peace-talks-open/
The beginning of Syrian peace talks in Geneva marks the first step towards a sustainable solution to the Syrian conflict that would ensure peace. Even the initiating of the conference is a huge step towards success. As Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters, the initiation of the conference by senior diplomats from 40 countries is significant (1). However, as this conference is the first time the Syrian government and the opposition have been in the same room since the beginning of the conflict, tensions were high at the ceremonial opening of the conference in Montreux, Switzerland (3). Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem went on a half an hour rampage denouncing the opposition (1). It is difficult to see how compromise can be reached when accusations are being thrown around. United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Kimoon worried that his “injunction that participants take a constructive approach to the crisis had been broken” (1). Also, it seems impossible to reach success when the principle goal of each side of the Syrian conflict is to defeat the other (2). Not to mention that the Syrian opposition is fractured and weak due to “considerable infighting, and the rise of al-Qaeda affiliates within its ranks,” which makes this side difficult to work with (2). While the opposition insists that President Assad be excluded from any future government, Syrian authorities refuse this demand (3). Resolution of this central issue, along with legitimate compromise could mean success for the peace talks. The conflict in Syria left over 130,000 dead, displaced millions of Syrians, and spread instability throughout the Middle East (3). True success would mean creating a lasting peace and functional government to bring relief to the Syrian people. While few are positive that there will be a breakthrough to lead to such success, the peace talks were never expected to lead to a quick resolution. As Mr. Kerry told reporters “negotiations to end wars, particularly complicated, difficult confrontations and conflicts like this, sometimes take a long time,” (3). While the situation may seem hopeless and the resolution of this conflict may take years, such a resolution is imperative.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
2) http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/21/syria-peace-talks-assad-us-obama-weapons-column/4720299/
3) http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-geneva-peace-talks-20140123,0,2485754.story#axzz2rGOckRVK
The current civil war going on in Syria began in March of 2011 as peaceful protests against forty years of rule by President Assad and his family, but has since turned into an armed revolt whose nonconforming dimensions have resounded across the Middle East (2). As of last week, the death toll in Syria has risen to over 130,000 people, more than a third of them civilians and 10,000 of them children. (1). As if this is not tragic enough, it is estimated that the actual figure is about 180,000 people, but it cannot be officially confirmed because the identities of so many victims are hidden or missing (2). While I agree with Secretary of State John Kerry's statement that the Syrian peace conference in Geneva is significant in that senior diplomats from forty countries have gathered together to try to resolve the conflict in Syria, I predict that doing so will be a tough process that lasts for months or even years. Overall, my conjecture for the potential for success in these talks is rather bleak. This is the first time that the rival sides have met since the fighting began, and I don't think that one conference can reduce any of the hostility that caused this war in the first place (3). From the conference's early moments on Wednesday, it started off badly when Syria's foreign minister described the rebels as "evil" and ignored appeals by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to avoid diatribe or even to yield the floor (1). Also, Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister who is representing the Syrian government in talks with the Syrian opposition, accused Arab nations of financing terrorism and conspiring to destroy the entire country. It doesn't help that those outside the conference room are fighting as well. For example, a scuffle broke out when an opposition activist merely asked a group of progovernment protestors if President Assad should be tried for war crimes (1). According to John Kerry, the main goal of the peace talks is to establish a "transitional administration by mutual consent of the Assad government and the Syrian opposition that would govern the country as part of a political settlement" (1). However, I believe that this will be extremely unlikely to result from the conference because each side has such different requirements in order to be satisfied with the situation. For instance, while the Syrians challenged the American insistence that Mr. Assad be excluded from the desired 'transitional administration', the President of Syrian opposition claimed that they will never accept a role for Mr. Assad in the new government (2). Although I agree that establishing a transitional administration of mutual consent would be a step in the right direction to end the Syrian civil war, my personal idea of ultimate success will not be satisfied until the Syrians are able to overcome their differences. I hate all forms of war, and to hear that the military has killed hundreds of civilians in recent weeks using barrel bombs on certain neighborhoods is horrible. I would like to see a complete solution to this bloody conflict, but I am skeptical that these peace talks in Geneva will be enough to initiate this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/death-toll-syria_n_4524443.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-syria-crisis-idUSBREA0L0H820140123
My prediction on the peace talks in Geneva is that it will take some more time to solve the conflicts in Syria. Both sides on the issue have different goals which makes it difficult to create a stable ground (3). Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the goal of the talks is to set up a transitional government (1). However, even though Syria’s government had agreed to attend the talks, they rejected the goal of establishing a temporary government to replace Assad (3). Opposition leader, Ahmad Assi al-Jarba said that the rebels would not want to accept on a settlement that keeps Assad in power (3). He had also said that the talks will also be pointless if the Assad government refuses to have a transition of government (3). The differences of the goals from both sides causes a deadlock in the process of negotiating. However, diplomats who are attending the peace conference said that the “two sides’ uncompromising public posturing concealed a deeper desire to see at least some results emerge from the negotiations” (3). Iraqi Foreign MInister Hoshyar Zebari said that he believes that this is only their public position and that their private positions will be different (3). This brings some hope that the talks will have some sort of success in bringing Syria closer to peace. The way I define success on this issue is making any sort of movement towards peace for Syria. I see the peace conference as a small success for both of the sides to try to negotiate on the issue even if they have opposing goals. I agree with John Kerry’s statement that “talk takes awhile” (3). The negotiations will be difficult and needs some time to hopefully develop peace for Syria. Diplomats and the U.S. officials see that political breakthroughs are unlikely, but with the effort of focusing on ceasefires and deliveries of humanitarian aid they believe it might help build wider support for a peace process ahead of future talks (3). As Secretary of State John Kerry said, “the peace conference will not be the end, but the beginning of a process” (2).
Sources:
1.http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/19/world/meast/syria-geneva-talks/index.html?iref=allsearch
2.http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/world/meast/syria-geneva-opposition/index.html
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syria-talks-begin-in-rancor-foreign-minister-lashes-out-at-kerry-un-chief-ban-ki-moon/2014/01/22/6061a0f2-8356-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
I think that the fact that the peace conference is even taking place is a small success. It is the first time the Syrian government and the opposition have met since the conflict began. Both sides had serious reservations about it. Syria almost refused to come when Iran’s invitation was rescinded (1). Yet still against the odds the conference did at last begin. With that said I do not think anything else will be accomplished. The main point of the peace conference was to create a transitional government that did not include Assad. Right away the Syrians said it is out of the question to remove Assad (2). They said that only Syrians have the rights to ask Assad to step down, no one else (1). It does not look promising if the Syrians are refusing to budge on this matter, the main focus of the conference. As soon as the conference started things got heated. Muallem, the Syrian Foreign Minister, started throwing accusations and was especially hostile. He said that the West was supplying the rebellion (1). He repeatedly blamed terrorism for the violence, mentioning it about once every minute he spoke. He even went over his time limit and ignored the UN secretary general who tried to stop him (3). He showed blatant disrespect towards the conference and seems unwilling to work for peace. The fact that fighting is still going and people are still dying makes a resolution at the conference much needed. Success to me would be if cease fire was discussed. Unfortunately, it does not seem like much can be accomplished here.
(1) http://world.time.com/2014/01/22/as-syria-peace-talks-start-in-switzerland-5-things-you-need-to-know/
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference/4758147/
(3) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/syria-peace-talks-could-drag-months-2014123181054253276.html
It seems at this point, after three years of a bloody civil war, even getting delegates to the table would be a huge breakthrough. However, I wouldn't call that success. Success to me would be negotiating a ceasefire between forces and possibly talks between the opposition and the Syrian government, without the hand-holding of the international community. This is highly unlikely though. The main reason is that the National Coalition that was supposed to unite all opposition forces to create a combined effort, has fractured and is not nearly as successful as it was hoped to be in joining forces together (2). The fact is right now that there are many different opposition groups, all with different goals and wishes. Some are directly tied with Al Qaeda and there would be no way of getting them to talk of peace with Western leaders. My prediction is that these talks will not go well, or at least no real progress will be made. I feel that Secretary of State John Kerry's statement, " Negotiations to end wars, particularly complicated, difficult confrontations and conflicts like this, take a long time," will be the reality as it has been before (1).
Work Cited:
1. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-geneva-peace-talks-20140123,0,2485754.story#axzz2rH6k5tuz
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218
As much as I hope that progress will be made out of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva and Montreux, I doubt that much progress will be made. I think that one of the main things that’s important for this peace conference to be successful is to for the countries present to have a will to negotiate. The U.S. and the U.K. have threatened to withhold aid from opposition groups, while France, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have also urged them to come to the negotiating table, albeit without threats (1). As a result, the decision was based more on international pressure than out of any true commitment to bringing this Syrian war to an end. I also think that acts of good faith would be key to achieving success at this peace talk. The Syrian government announced on Friday that it would be willing to swap prisoners with the opposition groups (1). This is progress; however, it doesn’t show that the war is going to stop anytime soon. I think that it will be very hard to find a political solution to Syria’s crisis given the vast differences between the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and the opposition. I agree when New York-based Human Rights Watch said Tuesday that “the United States has focused too strongly on bringing the warring parties into peace talks at the expense of putting “real pressure” on the Assad government to end atrocities and hold to account those responsible” (2). I feel like we have not punished Assad enough for his actions and are more concerned with peace conferences instead of punishing Assad and his followers for his inhumane acts that he’s done to his country. It makes me sad to think that this has been one of the most savage civil wars in decades and we still can’t find a way to stop it. However, I think that we are getting closer and closer to a cease-fire, but I don’t think that an agreement to a cease-fire will happen this Wednesday at the Syrian peace talks in Geneva.
(1) http://theweek.com/article/index/255286/4-factors-necessary-for-successful-syrian-peace-talks
(2) http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/22/world/brutality-of-syria-war-casts-doubt-on-success-of-peace-talks/#.UuHTmBDnbIU
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not see much success coming out of these peace talks. This civil War has been raging for months on end and both sides are heavily invested in winning. Thousands have died with both sides blaming the other for the majority of the deaths. A dividing problem is that the Syrian government views the rebels as terrorists and the Syrian information minister was asked about barrel bombs and was quoted saying, “This is the kind of question you ask if you support the terrorist groups” [1]. Both sides are going to start viewing each other as people with different political views rather than monsters for this to get anywhere. The UN-Secretary General Ban was optimistic saying, “We have a difficult road ahead, but it can be done and it must be done. It is still not too late to end the bloodshed and find the peaceful and democratic future. The moment to act decisively and courageously is now.” However the Syrian government entered the talks accusing the rebels or rape, arson, and destruction of Syrian culture. United States Secretary of State John Kerry accused Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad of human rights atrocities and he stated the the Syrian President needed to go [2]. Right now it appears that the UN is trying to get small aid to the thousands affected by the conflict and those that are in refugee camps [3]. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated, “No outside party or power can decide for the Syrian people and Syria as a country. We all have to help the people.” Overall I just hope that peace can be achieved. I highly doubt that will occur because of the attitudes of both sides to the other. Neither side appears desperate enough to surrender so I fear the bloodshed will continue. I just hope that other countries stay out of the conflict and let Syria find its own destiny. I would consider the conference a success if they made plans for President Al-Assad to have democratic election that are not rigged. I would consider the likelihood of this occurring to be almost zero.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/world/europe/syria-geneva-talks/index.html?hpt=imi_c2
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25855027
As much as I want to believe that the syrian peace talks will help to end the violence occurring in their country, I don’t see a lot getting solved at these meetings. First, the sides cannot agree on what the problems even is in syria right now. Some think it is the president, Bashar al-Assad, who is the center of the problem and it is he who must step down from power (1). Others, like Syrian ambassador Bashar Jaafari, believe that the focus must be on stopping terrorists who currently reside in Syria (1). But to both sides of the arguments its obvious that something is wrong and must be fixed. More than 100,000 people have already been killed in the conflicts (2). Secretary of State John Kerry believes that it is the president who is allowing for terrorists to live in his country and therefore must be taken out of power (2). So yes, the ambassadors at the convention do see that theres a problem. The only problem they now face is agreeing on anything. So far, the Syrian government is only worried about stopping terrorism, not creating peace (3). The two sides are not even meeting face to face right now. Instead, mediator is shuttling between the two meetings (3). I don’t believe that the current set up will work. People need to be face to face when in an argument, not speaking through another person. I fear the two sides’ points will lose their impact if they are being retold after they are spoken. This is not a meeting that is going to smooth things out in any sort of timely matter. Even Mr. Kerry has noted that he has not gone into this expecting and nice or speedy results (2). I think my skepticism is understandable seeing how our country’s representative is skeptical himself of the meetings. For now, I think the peace talks will be rough. However, if the ambassadors are able to find a common point to focus their issue on, I think it could begin to lead them in the right direction. Anything that begins to push in the direction of peace and lower the deaths would be considered a success in my book.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/are-syrians-ready-to-talk-un-takes-day-to-learn/2014/01/23/623ba794-8412-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
Success in any peace talk is generally defined as achieving a nonviolent resolution to the existing crisis. However, I seriously doubt this is going to happen in Geneva this week. The two groups at conflict have irreconcilable goals: the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, one of many rebel factions, has repeatedly demanded that any resolution must include the removal of President Assad from power, while the Syrian government refuses “to hand over power to anyone" and even plans for President Assad to seek a third term in the upcoming June elections (2). A majority of the Syrian rebels aren’t even attending the peace talks, some calling participation in the talks “treason (1).” As the Free Syrian Army is one of these many absent parties, any progress made at the talks will probably not transfer to an actual end of violence in the nation (1). Even the “third parties” at Geneva can’t agree. Russia and Iran (although Iran’s invitation was rescinded) support the current Syrian government, while many of the other Arab nations in the area (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) support the rebels, although they differ when it comes to which rebels they support (3). The United States, of course, supports a new government entirely that combines members of the current Syrian government and members of the various rebel organizations (1). But as long as one of the conflicting parties keeps calling the other a bunch of terrorists, plans for a post-war government don’t seem necessary (1). You know there is little hope when even the Syrian National Reconciliation Minister says, "Don't expect anything from Geneva II. Neither Geneva II, not Geneva III nor Geneva X will solve the Syrian crisis. The solution has begun and will continue through the military triumph of the state (1)."
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24628442
2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25872808
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-25864053
Although I wish for the Syrian peace talks to be successful and the violence to end quickly, I do not see this happening this week, nor anytime soon. Bashar Jaafari, Syria's ambassador to the UN, said in a news conference that Syria's priority should be stopping terrorism, not sharing power (1). This is coupled with the fact that both sides blame each other for bringing the country into ruin (2). This kind of attitude, especially at a peace talk, will not get anyone very far. Even John Kerry, who attending the negotiations, said the conference is a "process" and implied that it could go on for months or years (1). The initial meeting in Montreux, Switzerland did not start off the peace talks on the best note, although Lakhdar Brahimi, a UN mediator who is meeting with both sides separately, said that that alone is a small reason for hope (1). He believes that both sides may be willing to work out something in regards to humanitarian aid, cease-fires, and even prisoner exchanges (3). Because of this, I believe that there may be a slight chance that down the road that something could come of these talks in Geneva . Unfortunately, because of the hardened attitudes on both sides, I do not think that anything will be settled for many months, possibly years, to come.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/are-syrians-ready-to-talk-un-takes-day-to-learn/2014/01/23/623ba794-8412-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/syria-peace-talks_n_4650920.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Success at the conference would mean that they would actually be able to hold the conference. Furthermore, it would mean that they would come up with some solution. It doesn't have to be a great solution that would end the whole thing, but a solution that would change something. I think the Syrian peace conference would not be successful according to my definition of successful. First, it is hard to even get all the people attending the conference to sit down at the conference table. To get the every party attending the conference to set down and start the conference is challenging (1). No progress can be made if the conference doesn’t actually start. Then, if the conference were to start, the problem would be the disagreement between the parties. The supporters of Assad would be the party representing Syria, they are there to keep Assad in the leadership position. Russia will most likely be backing Assad. However, there will also be many nations that will attend the conference who will be supporters of the rebels, like the United States (2). The argument then is rather to keep Assad in government and to take a different route, or adhere with the original goal and create a transitional government in Syria without Assad (2). Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said that the opposing nations have no right to decide who the leader of Syria should be. He argues that only the Syrian people can decide who their leader can be (3). On the other hand, the United States and many other nations are sticking with the argument for transitional government without Assad. The arguments will be endless. There will be people siding with Assad, and other people who will be siding with the rebels. It will be hard to come up with a solution that everyone will be happy with. Success will not be a likely result of the Syrian peace conference.
1. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595004-conference-syria-not-enough-west-should-also-arm-rebels-desperate-times
2. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/01/21/264567465/whats-at-stake-in-the-syrian-peace-conference
3. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303947904579336080995440514?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303947904579336080995440514.html
Although I would like to stay optimistic about the outcome of the meetings at Geneva and Montreux the likeliness of reaching a lasting settlement is not looking favorable. Peace talks have already begun in Montreux and it has been a rocky start. As CBS put it, “it is clear that any political resolution to the crisis which has claimed more than 130,000 lives is going to be hard-won.” (1). At the talks delegates from Assad’s government and the Syrian opposition group took harsh tones toward one another as if they were still at war on a battlefield. This does not make it easy to begin talks of peace, the whole goal of the conference. Unfortunately with a ruthless dictator like Assad and equally angry rebels does not help the chances of the two groups making much progress. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "There is no way — no way possible in the imagination — that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain the legitimacy to govern. One man and those who have supported him can no longer hold an entire nation and a region hostage." This is something I do not see him doing willingly if at all; again another road block on the path to peace (2). I completely agree with Mr. Kerry on this matter, the leader who has put such cruel practices on his own people can not be kept in power without the Syrian people having disgusted feeling toward him and therefore can’t trust him either. As of right now I think that the conference would be considered a success if the two sides could agree to put away their harsh tones and glares and to be able to sit down peacefully to begin talking about their future. I believe there have been mishaps on both sides of the conflict and they both need to be willing to say that we messed up. Until the two groups can do this even the thought of talking peace will be impossible let alone reaching a written agreement.
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-peace-talks-kick-off-in-switzerland/
(2)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference/4758147/
My prediction for the peace talks on Syria is that a peace treaty will be made, but the execution may not proceed as planned. All sides represented at the Syrian talks have a goal in mind of a peaceful and effective agreement. I believe that diplomatic talks can only do so much. Whether or not the leaders can agree on something, the people on the streets of this Civil War may not be pleased (1). I also believe that we may see a real problem between the visions of the leaders. A ruthless dictator like Assad may be set on his ways, which Kerry can not accept if he wants the good of the nation and the world. If these talks go in a "best case scenario", the leaders will have to swallow their pride and compromise on some things. It is also hard to tell what might come from the treaty. Success might be defined as total peace to one leader, but to another, fighting may be the only solution. As the world watches, hoping that peace will be achieved, leaders must decide where their heart is, and if the lives of rebels and leaders in Syria is worth putting other important factors in jeapordy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/syrian-face-to-face-peace-talks-break-down
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/facetoface+meeting+Syrian+peace+talks+proves+disappointment/9425372/story.html
Though peace in Syria is the common goal of many nations, I am doubtful the upcoming talks in Geneva will produce any substantial results. Success in this case would have to mean a solid plan, on paper, of how each side will wind down the war (2). Anything short of that will make no progress because either a loophole will be found by either of the sides or they will simply not obey it, using the other sides stubbornness as their excuse. Neither side in the Syrian civil war, the government nor the opposition, seems willing to yield to the other’s demands (2). The opposition wants a new government, and the government wants for nothing to change. In order for any success, the two sides would have to willingly come to the table with intentions of working the best deal possible for both sides. However, each group is reluctantly coming to the table and has no interest in compromising (1). Looking at the long lasting talks between Israel and Palestine, one can see the mere number of times “peace talks” held is irrelevant. Reaching a solution is not dependent on location and timing but mindset and no one in command in Syria seems to have the right mindset. It is likely, however, that regardless of the true progress made during these talks, announcements will be made that “great progress was made” and a “foundation has been laid.” Those words merely act as a smoke screen to draw attention away from the fact the talks have failed. This situation can be compared to two siblings fighting. They’re going to bicker and believe the other side is treated better and forget that they’re family, however theres no parent to punish them in this case, and these siblings having a little more than water guns in their arsenal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brahimi-says-syria-bashar-assad-regime-wont-meet-opposition-snc-in-geneva-peace-talks/
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/right-from-the-start-syrian-peace-talks-on-brink-of-collapse/2014/01/24/ceadfbe6-84f5-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
In regards to the peace talks happening in regards to the Syrian Crysis, I would say that they could be considered successful if the two parties are able to at least agree upon a short- term ceasefire. As of now, the conflict has claimed the lives of more than 100000 people, and displaced even more (1), so the most important thing should be to end the conflict, and worry about reorganizing their government in the long run. With that in mind, it is clear that the rebel’s primary goal is to get President Bashar Al- Assad to step down from office, and that the stated goal of the Geneva I Communique is very similar; to negotiate a transitional government to replace the current regime. This fact almost caused the Syrian government to abandon initial talks on Friday (2), which leaves me thinking that the talks won’t be a success. Neither party is going to get what they want, as the current regime in charge wont step down, and the rebels won’t stop fighting until they do. It is my belief that when talks resume, they will end unsuccessful, and the fighting will resume as before.
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/right-from-the-start-syrian-peace-talks-on-brink-of-collapse/2014/01/24/ceadfbe6-84f5-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
I don’t believe that the Geneva peace talks will be successful in bringing Syria closer to peace. With the Assad delegation labeling the opposition force as terrorists and traitors, and the Syrian National Coalition, the opposition group, demanding Assad step down from power for his crimes against humanity, it would be surprising, to say the least, if any progress were made towards peace (1). Apart from the fact that the three year war has already resulted in over 130,000 deaths, peace negotiations will be made exceptionally difficult due to the fragmentation of opposition forces as rebels have been divided by Islamist fundamentalists (2). When a country is in a state of chaos as severely as Syria, it practically impossible to bring about any sort of efficient and peaceful change in power. Even if Assad does step down from power, it is predictable that many other factions will still violently vie for power. Perhaps, however, it is a positive sign that Assad’s delegation and the main Syrian opposition group agreed to meet at all. After eight months of debating on whether or not to attend the peace talks the opposition group did finally agree, so it may be that both sides have become willing to compromise in order to end the violence (3). Of course, it may also be, and it more likely is, that both sides want to garner more support for their own cause on the international stage. With both sides denouncing the other it is apparent that they have merely decided to declare verbal war on one another, rather than attempt to subdue the actual war which is destroying their country. The success that the peace talks can achieve at this point is very limited, perhaps the best thing that could be decided upon by the international community is where to relocate the millions that have been displaced by the war and how to ease their suffering.
(1). www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/syria-peace-talks-set-begin-201412244916160757.html
(2). www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-peace-talks-kick-off-in-switzerland/
(3). www.washingtonpost.com/world/disarray-as-iran-invited-to-syria-peace-talks/2014/01/20/62906d1c-81bd-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
I think that the Syrian peace talks will end with a standstill, which is mostly all we can ask for. I mean it would be great if the two sides could decide that having a fairly corrupt government in control is bad, but I am not sure they will let go of power so easily. I feel like the peace talks won't go so well because each side wants much more than the other will give them. For example, the peace talks already went for a bumpy start when the opposition refused to negotiate until the government signed a statement written about two years ago that would transition Syria's government (1). The opposition wasn't really playing a smart move, asking for huge immediate change, before the talks had really even began. This isn't really surprising that they throw this wrench in things when they only just decided to come to the talks last week (2). They barely have their ducks in a row and they want to negotiate a peace treaty, and "win?" This seems unlikely and it will probably just end in a standstill, or the government still retaining much of the upper hand.
Another problem with this is that the whole world is watching and waiting for a quick end to what even Secretary of State John Kerry admits will be a long process(3). I feel like with all this pressure to get the settlement decided no matter what is agreed upon the public, especially the American public, will feel it is a loss.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/syria-peace-talks_n_4661758.html?utm_hp_ref=world
2. http://www.npr.org/2014/01/24/265762397/during-syrian-peace-talks-rival-sides-wage-a-media-battle
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25866353
My prediction is that the Syrian peace talks will not go as well as could be hoped. My first indication of this was the headlines I was greeted with researching the topic, such as “2 Sides in Syria Talks Agree to Meet, Averting a Breakdown,” from The New York Times, and “Syrian peace talks on verge of collapse,” from Al Jazeera. Without even reading the articles, it is obvious that the talks were on the verge of being over before they even started.
One of the most telling details, I think, is that it is a major accomplishment that tomorrow (Saturday) everyone has agreed to meet in the same room, while it is still uncertain whether the negotiating groups will sit separately or face-to-face (1). If the groups cannot even handle looking at each others’ faces, how can they be expected to settle a country-wide crisis?
Differences at very fundamental levels also makes me skeptical that there will even be the beginning of a solution as a result of the meetings. For example, Syrian Foreign Minister purportedly questioned the point of the talks (2). To me, this is akin to a child who clearly recognizes a problem but stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the possibility of redressing wrongs. That, or the Foreign Minister does not think that there is a possibility of peace at all.
Another instance that highlights the great conflicts both sides will have to overcome in order to find the talk successful was the fact that the opposition was forcing an agreement onto the Syrian government (an agreement to a transitional government) before sitting down face-to-face (3). No matter how justified the opposition’s demands are, it indicates that there will be much hardship in having successful talks.
Although the Syrian government has proven to make surprising compromises in the past (such as when it showed compromise on the issue of chemical weapons), it has proved difficult to make the Syrian government follow through. I believe that this will continue to be the case in the Geneva II peace talks.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp&_r=0
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/are-syrians-ready-to-talk-un-takes-day-to-learn/2014/01/23/623ba794-8412-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html
3. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/syrian-rivals-start-talks-geneva-201412482122328729.html
A successful conference to me would be having delegates representing all parties involved to sit down at a meeting and to discuss the problems that they have with each other and to try to come up with a solution to their problems. The three year long civil war between the Syrian government and the opposition has claimed the lives of over 100,000 people (1). This violence has created instability in the middle east and even prompted the Syrian government to use chemical weapons against their own citizens. Talks between the two sides haven't accomplished much as the opposition is pushing for President Assad to be removed of his position. Talks between the two sides have become stalemated because the two sides now are not going to meet face to face (1). To me, this is silly and I believe that these two sides need to quit playing games and actually try to find a solution to their conflict instead of alluding the world to believe that they are actually trying to work out their differences. It is reported that the talks could last for weeks and even months (2). At this rate it is hard for me to believe that the two sides will be able to identify their differences and to work towards solving them. Because of this I don't believe that this meeting at Geneva will be very successful. Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. and Arab League special envoy for Syria, told reporters in Montreux (the pre Geneva conference) that, “We have no illusions that it is going to be easy but we are going to try very hard" (2). Although both the United States and Russia are trying to assist these negotiations, I believe that little will be accomplished and any movement towards peace after this meeting will be short lived because of the bitter stubbornness of both the Syrian government and the opposition. Because of this low success potential that I foresee, I believe that the conflict between the two sides will, whether we like it or not, end with violence and military intervention by multiple countries.
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25872808
(2) http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-geneva-peace-talks-20140123,0,2485754.story#axzz2rO0JLuQm
Seeing as the Syrian government has basically refused to negotiate peace before stopping the terrorism in their country (1), I don’t think the Geneva talks will be super successful. However, this perspective is from the point of view of the West, namely, America, and I think that the Syrian government has some legitimacy in making that prioritization. While I agree that a transitional government in Syria may be necessary and I do think keeping al-Assad in power is not a great idea (2), I definitely think that having peace talks may be getting too far ahead of the current situation. I think that it is a good idea for the Syrian government and the opposition to meet (3) and discuss the situation between themselves. But while UN interference may be necessary to catalyze the meeting and start the discussions, I think achieving peace within Syria and maintaining a safe, secure place for Syrians to live should be prioritized before making decisions about the Syrian government.
In that regard, then, I hope the talks will be successful in establishing a peaceful environment within Syria and stopping the civil conflict there. I hope that the talks will, first and foremost, provide for a safe place for Syrians to live. Then the UN can interfere with the Syrian government and kick al-Assad out.
(1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-peace-talks-slim-hope-seen-1.2507666
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
I predict that while the Geneva peace talks may lead to some agreements between the sides, it will not stop the fighting. The rebels want a new government and have risked their lives to try and create a revolution. They are unlikely to give in to a cease fire. The only way I see peace coming from the conference is Assad agreeing to back down, which is highly unlikely considering the strength with with he has opposed the rebels so far. The talks may be a success in a different way though, by being able to aid the neutral Syrians that are stuck in the war zones. The sides have already agreed to allow an aid convey into the city of Homs and get food, water, and treatment to the citizens in the war-torn city. (1) This is a step in the right direction, though either side may back off the agreement at any time. While the sides may be able to agree about helping citizens, they are far apart on any issues that involve the war. While a transitional government has been proposed, the current government has denied it repeatedly, leading to a gridlock in the talks. (2) I don’t believe that this issue or ones of a similar nature will be able to be solved at this conference or any time soon. It is likely that it will take one side taking a decisive advantage in the war before change will be made.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/world/middleeast/in-first-2-sides-in-syria-talks-hold-a-meeting-face-to-face.html?hpw&rref=world
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25908347
I predict that the peace talks will not completely accomplish what they are trying to do. These leaders all work on their own agenda and I am not sure that they will mesh as well as we are all hoping for. There are many different ways that these talks could go down the drain but only a few ways that the leaders could actually complete their attempt towards peace. This does not mean I am not hopeful. I really would like to see these peace talks go well but with all of the problems facing Syria I do not know if the leaders will be able to fix them all in this meeting or in any meeting at all. Like I said earlier these leaders know the problems but the solution that works in everybody's favor is eluding such people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference_n_4643331.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218
I don't think there is much potential for remarkable success coming out of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva. Though leaders have cautiously avoided sounding too optimistic about the possibilities of accomplishing anything during these talks, one of the primary goals is to get Assad to step down and to establish a plan for a transitional democratic government in his place (1). Assad's regime has been very clear in maintaining that that is not at all why they are attending the conference. His top officials have stated that urges from Western leaders and Syrian opposition forces for Assad to give up power are "not up for discussion," and they refuse to sign an agreement with "the terrorists," as Assad's government affectionately calls rebel forces (3). Assad has repeated many times that there is no point in attending the talks if they are not going to put an end to the "terrorists'" activities, which sounds like he is just interested in suppressing the opposition to ensure that he can remain safely in power (1). The opposition forces have also become extremely divided and decentralized recently (3). This could make it especially difficult for them to reach any kind of conclusion even within that group, making it even easier for Assad to get what he wants (3). Since the people at the conference are figureheads speaking for each side, experts worry that they are not truly reflecting the feelings of the groups that are fighting, meaning that the groups executing the acts of violence do not share their views and will not respect an agreement if one is reached (2). I can see how that would be a huge problem in making sure that a ceasefire or limitations on fighting, if agreements on the subjects are reached, are actually carried out in Syria. All of that being said, it is immensely important that these talks are actually happening, and the fact that these people have actually agreed to show up and be in the same room for any period of time is a success in my eyes. Even if an agreement can't be reached now, I think that this is an essential step in allowing for more discussion in the future. The chance that Assad will step down and a new government will be established is incredibly small, but maybe the groups can reach a ceasefire agreement or agree on some other limitation on fighting. Groups like Save the Children, a relief group working in Syria, are hopeful that both sides will at least be able to work something out to save children from violence by forbidding the use of explosives in densely populated areas and protecting schools and medical facilities (1). I don't think there will be any kind of breakthrough in the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, but hopefully the talks will accomplish something to start moving Syria towards a more peaceful future.
1 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/world/meast/syria-geneva-conference/
2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25838378
3 http://www.dw.de/chances-and-challenges-at-geneva-ii/a-17376665
I don't think there is much potential for remarkable success coming out of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva. Though leaders have cautiously avoided sounding too optimistic about the possibilities of accomplishing anything during these talks, one of the primary goals is to get Assad to step down and to establish a plan for a transitional democratic government in his place (1). Assad's regime has been very clear in maintaining that that is not at all why they are attending the conference. His top officials have stated that urges from Western leaders and Syrian opposition forces for Assad to give up power are "not up for discussion," and they refuse to sign an agreement with "the terrorists," as Assad's government affectionately calls rebel forces (3). Assad has repeated many times that there is no point in attending the talks if they are not going to put an end to the "terrorists'" activities, which sounds like he is just interested in suppressing the opposition to ensure that he can remain safely in power (1). The opposition forces have also become extremely divided and decentralized recently (3). This could make it especially difficult for them to reach any kind of conclusion even within that group, making it even easier for Assad to get what he wants (3). Since the people at the conference are figureheads speaking for each side, experts worry that they are not truly reflecting the feelings of the groups that are fighting, meaning that the groups executing the acts of violence do not share their views and will not respect an agreement if one is reached (2). I can see how that would be a huge problem in making sure that a ceasefire or limitations on fighting, if agreements on the subjects are reached, are actually carried out in Syria. All of that being said, it is immensely important that these talks are actually happening, and the fact that these people have actually agreed to show up and be in the same room for any period of time is a success in my eyes. Even if an agreement can't be reached now, I think that this is an essential step in allowing for more discussion in the future. The chance that Assad will step down and a new government will be established is incredibly small, but maybe the groups can reach a ceasefire agreement or agree on some other limitation on fighting. Groups like Save the Children, a relief group working in Syria, are hopeful that both sides will at least be able to work something out to save children from violence by forbidding the use of explosives in densely populated areas and protecting schools and medical facilities (1). I don't think there will be any kind of breakthrough in the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, but hopefully the talks will accomplish something to start moving Syria towards a more peaceful future.
1 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/world/meast/syria-geneva-conference/
2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25838378
3 http://www.dw.de/chances-and-challenges-at-geneva-ii/a-17376665
I do not think that these peace talks will accomplish all they are hoping for. With tension in the Middle East rising over the war and standing of many leaders across the world, the outcome is not likely to yield much. President Bashar al-Assad has had trouble with the rebels of both secular and religious backgrounds since the beginning of his presidency and has lashed out against said rebels in ways more violent than predicted, making the whole country unsafe for citizens and neighbors alike. (1) The Geneva peace talk in 2012 on nearly the same issue did not end the war, and it is not likely this talk will end the war, maybe soften the attacks, set some more limits like a cease fire in the country’s largest city, Aleppo, and in several other cities to cut down on civilian deaths. This war has killed over 130,000 and made millions homeless. (2) The National Coalition, one of the forces against the president and his regime, wants to move in and help preserve the Syrian people, hold the current regime to its crimes, and provide independence for the Syrian people. (3) A country under such ruthless leadership and internal struggle is not likely to completely change after a peace talk but it can hopefully agree upon more structure. The only way this can truly come to an end would be the backing down of President al-Assad and an agreement of peace on the rebels’ side. But with the force he is fighting with, I say it is unlikely there will be peace anytime soon.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/world/meast/syria-geneva-conference/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference_n_4643331.html
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218
I believe that the peace talks will ultimately be a success. At first I think that the US diplomats will try to overstep the boundaries and demand and accuse more than they should, and that will complicate things at first. The talks may also be interrupted several times and become slow due to events occurring in the civil war. Leading up to the talks, the US has taken as hostile tone to the Assad regime because of Iran and Russia’s involvement in support of the regime. Both the US and the EU have been ignoring the war crimes committed by the rebels and have been accusing the Assad regime of everything. Iran had been involved in the war on the opposite side since the beginning. In order for this to be a proper “peace” talk, all sides that are fighting should have a say. The US isn’t the only power in the war, in fact we have had very little involvement, it has mostly been just supportive and probably a few weapons donations. Iran cannot be ignored for the convenience of the US, they have already said that they would have “no preconditions” that they would use. The US has already been trying to make this a political game by saying Iran would hurt Kerry’s “credibility” if they would show up. I say that it is a peace talk and all sides should be represented(1). As the peace talks are going on, several events have made the talks falter. The countries that should not be directly involved are still sending weapons and aid, which further extends the conflicts in a time when all sides should want less war. The Syrian government has stopped talking to the opposition groups calling them terrorists after they have received a new shipment of arms from the US. The regime that the talks only can end a certain way because the US and the EU will either force the regime to concede to their demands or lose the war.(2) In the middle of the talks, the US is demanding that the regime aid the rebel city of Homs. The Syrian forces are refusing. I believe that the US should help the city because our nation prides itself on humanitarian efforts. Also, many of the sanctions that we are putting on the Syrians only hurt those who are not actually fighting, meaning civilians. And that is possibly a good reason why there is so much malnutrition as well.(3) Because I wrote this blog later, I have been able to include some current events. I predicted that there would be some hicups in the process because of the war efforts on both sides and the US trying to lead the talks and being closed minded on the policies. But ultimately these talks are shedding light on some situations which are really happening and there is already some improvement in relationships between supporting nations. The talks will ultimately be a success.
1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/20/us-syria-geneva-talks-un-iran
2.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10603270/US-supplies-arms-to-Syrian-opposition-as-Geneva-peace-talks-falter.html
3.http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/us-syria-crisis-idUSBREA0N0L520140127
The Syrian peace talks are doomed to fail. Over 130,000 people have been killed since the rebellion began in March of 2011 (1). The goal of this rebellion: unseat Syrian president Hassad. Preceding the peace talks, Hassad repeated incessantly that he will not agree to his resignation (1). In addition, each party’s goals completely discard the others’ (2). And even if an agreement could be reached, neither party has the means to accomplish the end that they seek (2). Because Hassad cannot reach an agreement that he favors, it is likely that he will simply back away from the talks and continue the fight, because at the moment he is winning the war against the rebels. In addition, the opposition that the Syrians are talking with do not represent the whole rebel force (3). Because the rebels are not one centralized group, it would be very hard to find a solution that pleases all of the groups involved, especially when pleasing only one group is proving difficult. Finally, Iran has been uninvited from the peace talks. It will be difficult to make a deal while one of Hassad’s key military suppliers is absent from the deal, and Iran will no doubt be mad about the revoking of their invitation (3).
1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/syrian-face-to-face-peace-talks-break-down
2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/21/syria-peace-talks-assad-us-obama-weapons-column/4720299/
3. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/140122/globalpost-explainer-why-the-syria-peace-talks-are-pr
In my opinion, I do not think there will be much success coming out of the peace talks. Bashar-al-Assad, does not want to go out of power and I feel that he wants to use the peace talks to ensure that he is not run out of power and that he is in the future of Syria (1). He was a ruthless dictator that used chemical weapons on his people so in my personal opinion, I do not think the peace talks will be successful because Assad will not leave power.
My definition of successful in the peace talks is if they are concentrated solely on a cease-fire, not on discussing a new political government in Syria. Although, I think the Syrian government does need to be discussed that should not be the main concern of the peace talks (2). The Syrian government made clear that they would attend the peace talks, but they would not accept our request of having Assad step down. I think the peace talks will be unsuccessful for this reason because the Syrian government is not going in with an open mind and if Assad sees himself in the future of Syria, I do not think he’s going to stop hurting his people (3).
1. http://www.theknoxstudent.com/blog/news/2014/01/22/predictions-and-hopes-for-the-geneva-ii-talks/
2. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/explaining-geneva-ii-peace-talks-syria-2014118142853937726.html
3. http://www.voanews.com/content/brahimi-to-try-focusing-syria-talks-on-geneva-plan/1839051.html
Since early 2011 it has become more and more evident that a resolution in Syria would, unfortunately, not be found on peaceful terms. Since the transition from civil protests to armed rebellion occurred, the death toll has soared above 130,000 people including innocent civilians and even children (1). One of the most interesting underlying issues is how the two groups view each other. In order to compromise, the Syrian government is going to need to stop labeling the rebels “terrorists” and both sides need to deal with one another in a much more civil manner in order to begin traversing this political and social minefield. When it comes to the peace talks in Geneva, all the parties involved have some work to do in terms of simply getting along with each other. There was a great deal of drama about the United Nations extending an invitation to Iran. Later, Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem accused a group of Arab nations of providing funding to terrorist organizations and plotting to destroy the country of Syria. When he was asked to wrap up his speech by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Mr. Moallem shot back, “You live in New York, I live in Syria” (2). Overall, it is becoming more and more apparent to the international community as a whole that Assad’s regime is coming to an end (3). This is a good first step in a movement to hopefully bring an end to this conflict and stability back to the region. Personally, my take on the conflict probably agrees most with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who said, “No outside party or power can decide for the Syrian people and Syria as a country. We all have to help the people.” While I don’t see the peace talks in Geneva accomplishing very much at all, they could end up being a useful stepping stone to bigger compromises in the weeks and months to follow. Simply put, “success” at these peace talks is simply getting everybody involved into the same room together. Without this critical first step, no resolution is within sight for Syria or her people.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/death-toll-syria_n_4524443.html
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-syria-crisis-idUSBREA0L0H820140123
This comment has been removed by the author.
While the furthering of peace in the Middle East is without a doubt, a noble goal worthy of attaining, I cannot help but be skeptical every time a peace talk or some similar effort is attempted(1). Starting off, this is not the first time peace talks have occurred over the events in Syria.(2) By the fact that we are still talking about the issues to this day, and discussing another attempted talk can generally inform you as to the success of the previous attempts.(1)Given the nature of the participants of this talk, namely, a government and a dissident faction, the probabilities of success are once again drawn into question. Think about it, how many times has that worked? Do you remember any in which it did not simply end in bloodshed? Upon contemplation, the reasoning is simple. A faction is like a hydra. Given it's lack of strict hierarchy such as the one seen in a government, it is easy for leadership to change hands. Thus, when you submit to the complaints of the current leadership, and work to compromise with them, there will always be some member who is not satisfied, recruits from within the ranks, and continues the fight once again. You don't pacify rebellions. You either succumb to them, or you put them down. As long as their are passionate opinions on both sides, there will never be definite peace
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
2)http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-baird-tells-syria-peace-talks-that-conflict-threatens-region-1.2506138
3)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-peace-talks-kick-off-in-switzerland/
Generally speaking, successful peace talks end in resolution of the problem without any violence, which is not at all likely in terms of the Syrian conflict. The primary rebel factions in Syria want a resolution that involves Assad’s removal from power, but the Syrian government flat-out refuses to hand over power to anyone even after the next elections; the United States has no way of answering both of these demands without bloodshed, especially considering that Russia supports Assad, while other Arab nations support one or more of the various rebel factions. An additional difficulty is that many of the rebel factions (including the Free Syrian Army) are not attending the peace talks at all.
Even a government that combines the rebels with the current government will not be enough to satisfy either side of the conflict, as both sides demand complete control of the government; even if such a government were successfully installed, it is highly likely that either the rebels or the current government would find issue with some aspect of it and reinitiate violence. The American government is going into the peace talks with intent to persuade Assad to step down; Assad is going into them with the intent to persuade the United States to take down the rebels and with absolutely no intent to pursue a peaceful solution. Neither side is willing to cede to the other. However, even if the peace talks are as incredibly unsuccessful as they probably will be, the existence of peace talks at all is a step forward, and perhaps some small improvements can be made to protect innocent groups or to lessen the violence at least a little.
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25836827
2. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/21/world/meast/syria-geneva-conference/
3. http://www.npr.org/2014/01/24/265762397/during-syrian-peace-talks-rival-sides-wage-a-media-battle
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/syrian-face-to-face-peace-talks-break-down
For Syria’s sake, I hope with all of my heart the talks go well. But realistically, I see them going pretty poorly - or continuing to go poorly, anyway. First, I think that the President must step down, but not step out; meaning he’d be involved without having major power - otherwise I see talks going nowhere. Second, I think that Syria needs to focus on a transitional government and Humanitarian Aid that includes rebel input, current government input, and limited foreign help. Finally, I think that, in order to be deemed successful, the government must re-establish some sort of order within itself and agree on common good things in order to attain legitimacy and support.
I think the president has to step down. In the first round of talks he claimed he felt he could win re-election in the coming year (1), but I think it would be counter-productive for him to stay in power as it has Syrian and foreign leaders divided, and probably isn’t the best choice for the country. He’s a liability in the movement towards peace, and U.S. Secretary of State, Kerry, feels that he has drawn terrorists into the country (2). However, I think that in order to get continuing participation from Moualem, he will need to stay involved, for a time, in the countries transformation before being charged with war crimes. If he is demoted but still retains some form of control, I think peace talks will continue, and maybe even progress in some way towards actual peace.
After this decision, I think that the focuses need to be on transitional government and humanitarian aid. The people in Syria have suffered enough, by both rebel and government forces (1). No one power is fit to rule in that country; but with leaders and representatives from multiple sides together and working on solutions, progress might be made if they agree on simple things. After that, aid needs to be the focus. Hopefully the upcoming rounds of talks will accomplish something, as they’ve so far yielded no results (3).
Overall, success is finding some common ground, making it stable, and building from there. By placing civilian laws and humanitarian aid in the forefront things might work. The murder, rape, torture, and suffering must stop (2). I hope, fro the Syrian civilians sake, that things change for them.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/syria-peace-conference_n_4643331.html
(2)http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25836827
(3) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/02/syria-peace-talks-end-deadlock-2014215112455622202.html
I am hoping that things work out and that progress will be made. There may be some complications while doing so but I am hoping that things will be sorted out soon. The New York times stated that 1) By the end of the day, the sense that the new peace talks were headed for trouble was compounded when the proceedings ended without any hint of progress toward imposing local cease-fires or opening humanitarian corridors for the delivery of food and medicine to besieged towns and cities. On top of that it was said that 1) Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, said that stopping terrorism, not sharing power. It is so hard to work out was has gone wrong when things continue to go wrong. 2) Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Syrian President Bashar Assad can have no place in a transition government because he has lost the legitimacy to govern. Secretary of State John Kerry feels that in order to negotiate a transition government President Assad should not be present because has led a brutal response to his own people and should not regain legitimacy to govern.
2) http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/22/syria-peace-talks-open/
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=1
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home