Kofi Annan is on a visit to Syria, to hold talks with the Syrian president Bashar Al Assad. His statement after the first round of these, offers us a beautiful insight into how international diplomats can make statements that allure to everyone, for the myriad of possible interpretations they offer. This is standard policy especially at the UN. They have to represent every opinion at the same time (which is altogether different from making true statements).
The official UN statement is bland and we learn not much beyond the epithets 'candid' and 'comprehensive'. Remarkably, mr. Annan urged Assad to take 'concrete steps' to end the current crisis. From his point of view, it should not have been hard for mr. Assad to reply that the 'concrete steps' taken by Syrian armed forces are exactly what everyone is complaining about.
It must be said, however, that the UN statement also mentions a less diplomatic statement by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs (which, by the way, offers us another insightful purview upon the Byzantine structure of the UN) that she was 'horrified' by some of the destruction she had seen. Luckily, she managed to wrest a concession from the Syrian government. A 'joint preliminary assessment mission to areas where people urgently need assistance'. These are a lot of words, that can mean a lot of things to a lot of peopl. Let's play the devils' advocate for a second: it means Syrian officials will plan a guided tours for UN officials. This will result in a report which will recommend what everyone already knows but will never happened, in carefully worded terms, while the Syrian armed forces get more time to wreak havoc.
Now let's have a look at the reporting on Annan's visit by some international news sources:
SANA: Syrian Arab News Agency:
'President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday said Syria is ready to make successful any sincere effort to find a solution to the events taking place in the country, adding that the success of any effort requires first studying what is happening on the ground instead of relying on the virtual space that is promoted by some regional and international countries to distort the facts and give a picture contrary to what Syria is undergoing.'
'Annan expressed hope to work with the Syrian government to launch diplomatic dialogue in the framework of a political process to restore stability to Syria and realize the aspirations of the Syrian people.
President al-Assad said that any political dialogue or political process can not succeed as long as there are armed terrorist groups that are working to spread chaos and destabilize the country through targeting citizens, both civilian and military, and vandalizing private and public properties.'
We can basically read the following: Annan agrees with our great leader! We should first shoot all the evil villains. Afterwards, a 'political process' to restore stability will take place, according to the 'aspirations of the Syrian people'. Let's not mention any specifice, please.
Will this herald change? If you ask Assad, or Sana, or any government represetative in Syria, I think 'serving the aspirations of the Syrian people' is what they have been doing all along, anyway; when they shelled Hama in the '80s, too. Why change?
Aljazeera cites comments of Annan to reporters afterwards: Annan is 'optimistic for several reasons'. The reasons are never mentioned, but when one reads further into the news report, mr. Annan's hope become quite elusive, when compated to the rest of is own statements.
'Annan, who also met religious leaders in Damascus on Sunday, said the situation was "so bad and so dangerous" that all Syrians bore a responsibility to "help heal and reconcile this nation".'
So does that mean the situation is so bad, that it can only get better? Thanks for getting our hopes up, mr. Annan.
He also states: 'It's going to be tough. It's going to be difficult but we have to have hope'. That last sentence almost makes it sounds like there are little reasons to harbor any hope at all. 'But losing hope will only make things worse.' We can almost read between the lines. Or: 'At least, if we try, we won't have to blame ourselves afterwards.' Mr. Annan is not cast in a very lucky role here. But that can be said for almost for the whole organization he represents.
The report continues to mention more violence, the intransigent Russian opposition to any diplomatic pressure on Syria and the unwillingness of the armed opposition forces to negotiate with the regime.
I guess Aljazeera disagrees with mr. Annan as far as hope is concerned. Which is exactly why his 'optimism' is put in between brackets throughout the article.
Xinhua, however, choses to highlight a very different Annan:
'Kofi Annan, joint special envoy for Syria of the United Nations and Arab League (AL), expressed hopes Sunday that Syria would remain secure and said he hopes to be conducive in achieving everything that might lead to democratic reforms and maintain the respect of human rights in Syria, state- run SANA news agency reported.'
'He said he met Syrian President Bashar Assad, some opposition activists and businessmen, and found that all of them want a " solution and to heal wounds," stressing that the Syrians alone are capable of solving their problems.'
It seems the Chinese hold some of that elusive hope Annan is praying for. The world must be a very comforting place from behind a screen in a small apartment in a mega-city somewhere in China. Unless you try to move beyond the government-condoned version of facts, which will result in both moral and official discomfort.
The New York Times was more critical of the results of the negotiations:
'High-level diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting in Syria yielded mixed results on Saturday as President Bashar al-Assad shut the door on any immediate negotiations with the opposition and escalated a new military assault on the city of Idlib.'
However, it does also note other initiatives which may be more fruitful. In direct negotiations between the Arab League and Russia, some progress has been made to weaken the demands on Syria, in exchange for Russian cooperation. Perhaps. Yet, this only goes to show just how useless Annan's visit to Syria really was. A photo-op that the regime can abuse, that makes the whole UN feel less useless at solving these conflicts, while the real powerbrokers can negotiated on the side.
The Guardian, finally, seems not even remotely interested in any seemliness and calls Annan 'rebuffed':
'Kofi Annan's ceasefire mission falters as the tanks roll in to besiege the city of Idlib'
So, depending on what you read where, Annan's mission was either a succes or a failure, supportive of the Syrian regime or a bland UN formality.
This can only leave us behind thrilled to hear what the second day of talks will bring. They are certain to provice everyone with exactly what they want to hear. Again.
No comments:
Post a Comment