Every major press agency or news outlet dedicates an article to the Russian 'change of heart' concerning Syria. This evolution is of course mostly cosmetic, when the permitted language they will require for the draft to pass into a resolution is examined. In fact, mr. Lavrov explicitly states: 'I don’t think you can talk about any revision in our position, if you are familiar with the consistency of our recent statements,' And of course Xinhua also adds an article which states that Russia will honor its arms commitments to Syria, so as to offset the gravity a little. Only Iranian news agencies remain remarkably silent on this issue.
But not SANA, the Syrian Arab News Network. To confront the kaleidoscope of opinions concerning the statements of Lavrov, it offers a spectacular form of 'telescopic vision'.
It manages to completely ignore every statement at the expense of Syria: That the Syrian government 'responded incorrectly' and 'is making a lot of mistakes'.
But SANA carries a different message. A message of support, no doubt provided by that same Russian government. But it goes to show the split tongue of the Russians, the narrow scope of SANA, but in this case also of the BBC and other major western news organizations. Because all this indicates is Russia adapting its posture slightly, internationally, though not bilaterally. And nothing will change on the ground, in Syria.
'MOSCOW, (SANA) – Chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Valentina Matviyenko on Tuesday said that Russia is opposed to exerting excessive pressure on Syria and using force to undermine the authority in it, stressing that the Syrian crisis can only be solved by negotiations between the authorities and the opposition without preconditions.'
In other words: Let the Syrian government deal with its opponents in exactly the way they claim they are doing. The Syrian authorities have namely been involved in these negotiations for months now. They just need to get rid of some terrorists, too. And no-one should interfere with that.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Comparative Journalism: Confusion in Iran
There seems to be some confusion in Iran's policy, concerning the oil embargo. This is reflected in the following news items, plucked from the Fars News Agency website.
Iran Ups Oil Storage Capacity
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran has re-commissioned a new storage facility at a Persian Gulf island as part of its measures to block the impacts of the current embargos imposed by the West on Iranian crude oil, an Iranian oil official stated.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012152795
So clearly, Iran is bracing itself for the impact of the oil embargo. But then, in the very next press statement, we read:
Growth in Iran's Crude Exports Proves Ineffectiveness of Oil Embargos
TEHRAN (FNA)- The latest data shows that Iran has increased its oil exports in the first month of 2012 despite the embargos imposed by the western states against the country's oil sector.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012152785
This can mean a couple of things and we are about to explore them, of course.
1 Iran is lying about the impact of the oil embargo, as a bluff.
2 Iran is building completely superfluous oil stockage capacity. For some reason undisclosed.
3 Iran is not feeling the impact of the oil embargo yet, but prepares for the worst, while producing press statements that are meant to show a stiff upper lip.
Is is hard to tell what is the truth behind this lurching chasm. There is no real way of accommodating both articles, without a sleight of hand. But it reveals some interesting diversity within the news analysis by Mehr.
Iran Ups Oil Storage Capacity
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran has re-commissioned a new storage facility at a Persian Gulf island as part of its measures to block the impacts of the current embargos imposed by the West on Iranian crude oil, an Iranian oil official stated.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012152795
So clearly, Iran is bracing itself for the impact of the oil embargo. But then, in the very next press statement, we read:
Growth in Iran's Crude Exports Proves Ineffectiveness of Oil Embargos
TEHRAN (FNA)- The latest data shows that Iran has increased its oil exports in the first month of 2012 despite the embargos imposed by the western states against the country's oil sector.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9012152785
This can mean a couple of things and we are about to explore them, of course.
1 Iran is lying about the impact of the oil embargo, as a bluff.
2 Iran is building completely superfluous oil stockage capacity. For some reason undisclosed.
3 Iran is not feeling the impact of the oil embargo yet, but prepares for the worst, while producing press statements that are meant to show a stiff upper lip.
Is is hard to tell what is the truth behind this lurching chasm. There is no real way of accommodating both articles, without a sleight of hand. But it reveals some interesting diversity within the news analysis by Mehr.
Comparative Journalism: On a Sidenote
Human interest, sideshow, fun facts etc. They are on the home page of every news outlet today. News has to be fun, of course, just like everything else. And if you think that the official press agency of the Islamic Republic or Iran (IRNA) has to act any different, you are clearly mistaken.
From their healdlines:
'Half of Indians defecate in open, but more own a mobile phone: Report'
From this article we do not only learn a lot of superfluous statistics about India, the smarter reader can deduce in the syllogistic manner that: Some Indians defecate in open and have a mobile phone.
Just so you know.
From their healdlines:
'Half of Indians defecate in open, but more own a mobile phone: Report'
From this article we do not only learn a lot of superfluous statistics about India, the smarter reader can deduce in the syllogistic manner that: Some Indians defecate in open and have a mobile phone.
Just so you know.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Syria vs Libya
The need for intervention in Syria is clear. But that is about everything that can be stated about it. Someone should go in there and do something. But who and what it is impossible to tell. What is possible, is to say who should not do what. But first some things have to be disentangled from one another.
The West needs to keep its hands off of Syria, that much is clear. Luckily, for a change, it is not interested. Before the oil-chanting crowd gets started: for about 90% of people: there is hardly any in Syria. For 90% of the rest, foreign policy is not to be viewed solely through the narrow scope of oil. That would be like say... basing your election strategy on gas prices. The intervention in Lybia was only very marginally about oil. I have heard claims that the US would not intervene in Syria because there is no oil. Geopolitically speaking, Syria has more impact on oil prices than Libya ever could.
The 'realist' benefits to be attained by toppling Assad Syria are far beyond the very limited ones to be reaped in Libya: Destabilizing Hamas (already achieved, completely by accident), Hezbollah and isolation of Iran. Stabilizing Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.
But possible downsides are legion: Civil war in Syria, a possible breeding ground for extremism. The loss of an enormous market for Turkey and Iraq, reducing economic growth in the region enormously. Destabilization of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Turkey.
Then, if Assad is allowed to get away with what he does?
Benefits: Stability in Syria as it was before: at gunpoint (I have heard many Syrians claim they dislike Assad, but are greatful he is around to keep the peace). Stability in Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Hezbollah and Iran are allowed to maintain their dangerous positions. Israel and Syria will continue to stare each other down.
Assad is a murderer and the plight of the Syrian people is terrible. The possible benefits of intervention are real. Terrible as it is, the means of attaining a stable, democratically elected regime in Syria, may be by far worse then letting Assad 'pacify' the country.
In Libya, there was a leader the many knew to be a madman. A relic from the past. Bashar Al Assad had a different standing in the world and among his people, and many believed him to be progressive still, until he let loose the cannons. Secondly, Libya's tribal society is a problematic backdrop to a peaceful solution, but much less so that in Syria. In Libya, 6 million live stretched out across an enormous surface and in relative isolation of geopolitical fault lines. Libya is a void, and one with enough natural resources to 'buy' itself prosperity, if only properly managed. Syria is a nation of over 20 million, concentrated in a densely populated and stretch on the west. The terrain is much better suited for protracted conflict due to its ruggedness. To add to that, its military is far more numerous, loyal and better equipped than the Libyan army. Not only are there tribal tensions, there are ethnic, religious and sectarian tensions to add to the mix. Powerful neighbors with long-standing feuds make this a dangerous combination.
Syria is a hornet's nest. Intervention could result in a civil war worse than anything that happened in Iraq, with terrible possibilities regarding neighboring countries. Here are two issues that further complicate possible intervention:
- The West cannot be at the forefront of any intervention. Unlike in Libya where France and the UK were 'leading the effort'; after the US pulled out its teeth and claws, Europe was left to kill the defenseless beast. Libya, so close to France and Britain proved to be a logistical nightmare without the help of the US, which had to silently back the frail European capacity. In Syria, much further away, Europe could not clear the job at all. The US would need to deploy the full brunt of its military to subdue it properly. It would be impossible for European or Arabic nations to 'lead the way' with silent US support. No-one would take bait when the hook is so clearly in sight. The US cannot afford another intervention in the Middle East for a long time to come, due to past... errors of judgement, say. They are also unwilling and unable to finance the effort. Europe lacks the capacity to project its power, or the support of its citizens for a protracted conflict. Intervention in Syria seems doomed.
- Any intervention cannot consist of air raids only. The civilian toll would be enormous and Assad's ground army will be nigh-on impossible to contain from the air only. But putting boots on the ground, only complicates my first point.
What options does this leave us with? UN intervention will only happen once Russia changes its mind. Give me a call when that happens. The only alternative is Arabic intervention under Turkish leadership. This option is highly problematic. Not only does Turkey have numerous outstanding scores to settle with Syria (conflict over a Syrian province France once 'gave' to Turkey, water issues, the Kurdish problem,...), the Turkish army is also hardly an example of restraint and peaceful resolve. It would be up to the task, as a very well-equipped, sizable and organized force. But it is haunted by a recent past of violent oppression in Turkish Kurdistan. Any Arabic 'backup' can hardly be seen as any better. There isn't a great deal of Middle Eastern countries that direly need their troops at home to maintain a precarious balance.
Turkish army intervention would allow for the US to 'take care' or air superiority, relatively unseen as the Turkish army would play a leading role. But it would also result in a war the scale of which the Middle East hasn't seen since the Iraq-Iran war and the precarious occupation of a problematic country.
Balancing that out against murderous Assad is almost impossible and whatever choices will be made, history will blame its makers, for lack of a clear view of the alternative option.
The West needs to keep its hands off of Syria, that much is clear. Luckily, for a change, it is not interested. Before the oil-chanting crowd gets started: for about 90% of people: there is hardly any in Syria. For 90% of the rest, foreign policy is not to be viewed solely through the narrow scope of oil. That would be like say... basing your election strategy on gas prices. The intervention in Lybia was only very marginally about oil. I have heard claims that the US would not intervene in Syria because there is no oil. Geopolitically speaking, Syria has more impact on oil prices than Libya ever could.
The 'realist' benefits to be attained by toppling Assad Syria are far beyond the very limited ones to be reaped in Libya: Destabilizing Hamas (already achieved, completely by accident), Hezbollah and isolation of Iran. Stabilizing Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.
But possible downsides are legion: Civil war in Syria, a possible breeding ground for extremism. The loss of an enormous market for Turkey and Iraq, reducing economic growth in the region enormously. Destabilization of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Turkey.
Then, if Assad is allowed to get away with what he does?
Benefits: Stability in Syria as it was before: at gunpoint (I have heard many Syrians claim they dislike Assad, but are greatful he is around to keep the peace). Stability in Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Hezbollah and Iran are allowed to maintain their dangerous positions. Israel and Syria will continue to stare each other down.
Assad is a murderer and the plight of the Syrian people is terrible. The possible benefits of intervention are real. Terrible as it is, the means of attaining a stable, democratically elected regime in Syria, may be by far worse then letting Assad 'pacify' the country.
In Libya, there was a leader the many knew to be a madman. A relic from the past. Bashar Al Assad had a different standing in the world and among his people, and many believed him to be progressive still, until he let loose the cannons. Secondly, Libya's tribal society is a problematic backdrop to a peaceful solution, but much less so that in Syria. In Libya, 6 million live stretched out across an enormous surface and in relative isolation of geopolitical fault lines. Libya is a void, and one with enough natural resources to 'buy' itself prosperity, if only properly managed. Syria is a nation of over 20 million, concentrated in a densely populated and stretch on the west. The terrain is much better suited for protracted conflict due to its ruggedness. To add to that, its military is far more numerous, loyal and better equipped than the Libyan army. Not only are there tribal tensions, there are ethnic, religious and sectarian tensions to add to the mix. Powerful neighbors with long-standing feuds make this a dangerous combination.
Syria is a hornet's nest. Intervention could result in a civil war worse than anything that happened in Iraq, with terrible possibilities regarding neighboring countries. Here are two issues that further complicate possible intervention:
- The West cannot be at the forefront of any intervention. Unlike in Libya where France and the UK were 'leading the effort'; after the US pulled out its teeth and claws, Europe was left to kill the defenseless beast. Libya, so close to France and Britain proved to be a logistical nightmare without the help of the US, which had to silently back the frail European capacity. In Syria, much further away, Europe could not clear the job at all. The US would need to deploy the full brunt of its military to subdue it properly. It would be impossible for European or Arabic nations to 'lead the way' with silent US support. No-one would take bait when the hook is so clearly in sight. The US cannot afford another intervention in the Middle East for a long time to come, due to past... errors of judgement, say. They are also unwilling and unable to finance the effort. Europe lacks the capacity to project its power, or the support of its citizens for a protracted conflict. Intervention in Syria seems doomed.
- Any intervention cannot consist of air raids only. The civilian toll would be enormous and Assad's ground army will be nigh-on impossible to contain from the air only. But putting boots on the ground, only complicates my first point.
What options does this leave us with? UN intervention will only happen once Russia changes its mind. Give me a call when that happens. The only alternative is Arabic intervention under Turkish leadership. This option is highly problematic. Not only does Turkey have numerous outstanding scores to settle with Syria (conflict over a Syrian province France once 'gave' to Turkey, water issues, the Kurdish problem,...), the Turkish army is also hardly an example of restraint and peaceful resolve. It would be up to the task, as a very well-equipped, sizable and organized force. But it is haunted by a recent past of violent oppression in Turkish Kurdistan. Any Arabic 'backup' can hardly be seen as any better. There isn't a great deal of Middle Eastern countries that direly need their troops at home to maintain a precarious balance.
Turkish army intervention would allow for the US to 'take care' or air superiority, relatively unseen as the Turkish army would play a leading role. But it would also result in a war the scale of which the Middle East hasn't seen since the Iraq-Iran war and the precarious occupation of a problematic country.
Balancing that out against murderous Assad is almost impossible and whatever choices will be made, history will blame its makers, for lack of a clear view of the alternative option.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
There's a EU, but does it come with citizens?
The European Union is the least sexy iternational institution on the planet. The African Union is inefficient and excels mostly on defending ruthless dictators still seen as anticolonial heroes. But many African look up to it as an 'African' institution. The United Nations are an inefficient moloch that usually decide to postpone their judgement or action. And when they take action, they try to make it resemble inaction as closely as possible. International organisations without strong enforcement mechanisms or a streamlined decision-making process are doomed not to steal the show on the international level. That is why the United States decided to strengthen the federal level considerably about a decade after independence. It was an unworkable conglomerate without.
The European Union suffers from these two deficits, yet they are not its only problems. The main story EU citizens are told about the institution is a sad one, told by politicians from the national level: 'We had to.' This is the main reason for its impopularity among many. The EU has become the scapegoat national politicians can refer to when they have to push through unpopular decisions. A useful mechanism on the national level, maybe. But the credibility of the organisation suffers under it tremendously. The austerity programs being pushed through under the auspices of the EU are set to decrease its popularity even further.
Yet it could have been comepletely different. Very useful legislation has been passed on a European scale, especially concerning consumer protection. Lawsuits against molochs business that many smaller companies would not be able to wage: Google, Microsoft, ... International cooperation under the flags of the ESA and EADS, both highly successfull, but not highlighted nearly enough. Roaming and international calling charges within the EU have been lowered tremendously. But does the average European citizen have even the slightest clue how this came to be? Cellphone companies were left to steal the show, advertising their new 'ultracheap international rates', which they only assumed under the enforcement of European law. The Erasmus Europe-wide exchange programme is a very successful and popular measure. But only few students that go on these programmes give any credit the European Union.
Many problems haunt the EU: a democratic deficit, 'invisible' leadership, rogue national politicans that undercut European decision-making, the blame game played on a national level pointing towards the EU, the single currency without a pan-European economic or fiscal approach and others. But the least the EU should do is seize some of the credit for all the good things they undertake. The relation between the institution and its citizens is rotten. And Europeans should not be expected to come crawl back to the EU to make amends any time soon.
But apart from this 'advertising issue' there are deeper problems with the structural model of the EU. The aloof and opaque decision-making process and the bureaucratic mindset of officials involved is not helping anyone. If the European Union wants to outgrow its status of overarching bully, disliked by its citizens, if it wants politicians on the national level to stop demonizing it while they have to sell it to their citizens at the same time, things will have to change sooner rather than later. The 'presidency of the European Council' is too vague and destined for what appears only as more 'shady backroom dealings'. More is needed: direct elections for European politicians who can make real decisions; faces that represent the citizens of the Union, not just their politicians.
The European Union suffers from these two deficits, yet they are not its only problems. The main story EU citizens are told about the institution is a sad one, told by politicians from the national level: 'We had to.' This is the main reason for its impopularity among many. The EU has become the scapegoat national politicians can refer to when they have to push through unpopular decisions. A useful mechanism on the national level, maybe. But the credibility of the organisation suffers under it tremendously. The austerity programs being pushed through under the auspices of the EU are set to decrease its popularity even further.
Yet it could have been comepletely different. Very useful legislation has been passed on a European scale, especially concerning consumer protection. Lawsuits against molochs business that many smaller companies would not be able to wage: Google, Microsoft, ... International cooperation under the flags of the ESA and EADS, both highly successfull, but not highlighted nearly enough. Roaming and international calling charges within the EU have been lowered tremendously. But does the average European citizen have even the slightest clue how this came to be? Cellphone companies were left to steal the show, advertising their new 'ultracheap international rates', which they only assumed under the enforcement of European law. The Erasmus Europe-wide exchange programme is a very successful and popular measure. But only few students that go on these programmes give any credit the European Union.
Many problems haunt the EU: a democratic deficit, 'invisible' leadership, rogue national politicans that undercut European decision-making, the blame game played on a national level pointing towards the EU, the single currency without a pan-European economic or fiscal approach and others. But the least the EU should do is seize some of the credit for all the good things they undertake. The relation between the institution and its citizens is rotten. And Europeans should not be expected to come crawl back to the EU to make amends any time soon.
But apart from this 'advertising issue' there are deeper problems with the structural model of the EU. The aloof and opaque decision-making process and the bureaucratic mindset of officials involved is not helping anyone. If the European Union wants to outgrow its status of overarching bully, disliked by its citizens, if it wants politicians on the national level to stop demonizing it while they have to sell it to their citizens at the same time, things will have to change sooner rather than later. The 'presidency of the European Council' is too vague and destined for what appears only as more 'shady backroom dealings'. More is needed: direct elections for European politicians who can make real decisions; faces that represent the citizens of the Union, not just their politicians.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Comparative Journalism: An interesting fact
The home page of Fars News Agency (A semi-official Iranian press agency) offers a number of tabs for the reader to open. Some examples? It's pretty standard: international, politics, economy, sports... But the special tab for nuclear news is quite interesting. I have done extensive research, but found no other press agency or newspaper that had a special 'nuclear' tab. Or a 'defence' one, for that matter.
But when opened, it is unsurprising that they keep a tab on their nuclear and defence news. Almost every day, sometimes twice a day, there seems to be the need to discuss the nuclear programme. Whereas sports news can take more than three weeks to generate anything of interest. The same holds for the arts, a field in which there seems to be very little interest, as it can take over a month to update this part of the website. Culture (art is not culture, of course. Maybe this reveals some of the backdrop to the paucity?) is a little bit better off than arts and sports, as a lot of cooperation pacts with other states can be made in this respect. Because Iran is not an international pariah, of course. Just not so very interested in arts or sports.
But when opened, it is unsurprising that they keep a tab on their nuclear and defence news. Almost every day, sometimes twice a day, there seems to be the need to discuss the nuclear programme. Whereas sports news can take more than three weeks to generate anything of interest. The same holds for the arts, a field in which there seems to be very little interest, as it can take over a month to update this part of the website. Culture (art is not culture, of course. Maybe this reveals some of the backdrop to the paucity?) is a little bit better off than arts and sports, as a lot of cooperation pacts with other states can be made in this respect. Because Iran is not an international pariah, of course. Just not so very interested in arts or sports.
Comparative Journalism: A Message for everyone
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)