Geneva II is Preparing for a Bloodbath in Syria
06 March 2014
By Amir Taheri
In human conflicts, trying to gauge what's right and
what's wrong is seldom an easy call, as the spectrum
of colliding ideas and deeds often includes a grey
area. When it comes to civil conflicts, the task
becomes even more difficult, because the urgent need
to stop the tragedy trumps the temptation to apportion
guilt. Every now and then, however, we face a conflict
in which taking sides is both a theoretical
possibility and a moral necessity. To that category
belongs this crisis, which has plunged Syria into
tragedy for more than three years. This is why one
feels a sense of outrage when faced with those who try
to "yes-but" or "either/or" their way out of taking
sides which, in the end means taking the side of the
wrongdoers.
Two years ago, a senior member of the administration
of US President Barack Obama told me that it was "out
of the question to allow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad
to massacre his people." That was the time of
"red-lines," which were destined to become pink and
then fade away altogether. Last year, a senior French
official reassured me that French President François
Hollande was ready "even for military action" to bring
the Syrian carnage to an end. But, of course, that was
before Obama accomplished his backward leap, leaving
the hapless Hollande in the lurch.
Although I campaigned for international action to end
the Syrian carnage, I never believed that the US under
Obama or France under Hollande would do anything
meaningful to help the Syrian people achieve freedom.
However, I did expect, and hoped, that, unable or
unwilling to do anything useful, the "major Western
democracies" would do try to do no harm either. Sadly,
I was proved wrong. First, John Kerry, the US
Secretary of State, no doubt ordered by Obama, agreed
to reduce the whole issue to that of Syria's chemical
weapons.
Then, it was Hollande's turn to dismount from his high
horse to try and market the so-called "Geneva II"
show. Gradually, the chemical weapons issue was
reduced even further to cover only the stockpiles
indicated by the Syrian regime itself. That meant
nothing would be done to provide an independent list
of suspected locations of these weapons. Nor was there
any suggestion of destroying the factories, the
laboratories and research centers involved in what
experts believe is the largest chemical weapons
program in the Middle East. Needless to say, the deal
brokered by the gullible Kerry did not deal with
Syria's biological weapons either.
During the World Economic Forum in Davos last month,
Kerry boasted of his "success" in convening the Geneva
II talks on Syria. Yet this looks like a step towards
repeating a tragedy that was witnessed in Bosnia.
Assad's regime is promising to let women and children
leave a number of besieged cities, starting with Homs,
under UN supervision. A similar scenario played out in
Bosnia in July 1995 when women and children in
Srebrenica, under UN protection since 1993, were
allowed to leave—and then Serb death squads moved in
to massacre the 8,000 men and boys left in the
besieged city. The UN "protection force" looked the
other way while the mass killings, later described by
the Security Council as "genocide," continued 200
yards away.
After the massacre, the late US diplomat Richard
Holbrooke let the Serbs reap the benefits of ethnic
cleansing by establishing their "republic" in the
third of Bosnia-Herzegovina that they'd captured.
The true nature of the Russian-Syrian hidden agenda
was partly revealed last week when hundreds of people
allowed to leave Homs were instantly arrested by
Assad's forces and taken to unknown destinations. If
the same scenario were repeated elsewhere, the regime
would be able to conduct mass arrests at minimum cost
and under the gaze of UN observers.
Originally, the Geneva discussions were a Russian ploy
to hook the US into endless talks while Moscow and
Tehran helped Assad crush his opponents with superior
military force. The net result of Kerry's "diplomatic
success" could be a Russo-Iranian victory to regain
control of Syria through genocide. They may even
replace Assad with another murderous poltroon, a
scenario that Russian President Vladimir Putin used in
Chechnya when he promoted Ramzan Kadyrov as that
unhappy land's new "president."
Remember that "Geneva I" was supposed to be about
forming a "transition government " to lead Syria out
of its deadly impasse. "Geneva II" was supposed to be
about fixing the timetable for the transition and
agreeing on its components. Now, however, we are told
by Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United
Nations, that there is no talk of a timetable for
transition and that "Geneva II" will focus on
"humanitarian issues."
In the meantime, Russia and its allies in Tehran will
continue funding and arming Assad's forces while
protecting it against diplomatic pressure. One sign of
this came on February 6, when Australia, Jordan and
Luxembourg circulated a draft resolution at the UN
Security Council on ensuring humanitarian access to
the remote and hard-to-access parts of Syria. Churkin
did not even take the time necessary to study the
proposed draft before stating that "it would not be
examined, let alone passed." The reason for this is
that the draft, without naming the Assad regime,
contains a threat of sanctions against those who put
up obstacles to the deliveries of humanitarian aid.
The draft speaks of a 15-day deadline for fulfilling a
list of demands that includes an end to all forms of
violence and encroachments on international law,
including the bombings of populated localities and
attacks on humanitarian missions, as well as the
lifting of blockades of cities. And these are all
things that Assad has been doing for three years and
continues to do today.
In other words, Russia has succeeded to obtain
carte-blanche for Assad while Obama and Kerry use the
little influence they have on Syrian opposition groups
to persuade them to quietly walk to the slaughter.
Clearly, Russia is using "Geneva II" as a ploy to
ensure victory, if not for Assad personally—he may yet
be ditched and sent into exile in Qom—for the faction
in Damascus that hopes to prolong the 43-year-old
despotic system with support from Tehran and Moscow.
And that could entail an even bigger bloodbath in
Syria, one that even Kerry might not be able to sell
as a "diplomatic victory" for his team.
Amir Taheri was born
in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran,
London and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of
the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79). In 1980-84, he was
Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In 1984-92,
he served as member of the Executive Board of the
International Press Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and
2004, he was a contributor to the International Herald
Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal,
the New York Post, the New York Times, the London
Times, the French magazine Politique Internationale,
and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he
was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt.
Taheri has published 11 books, some of which have been
translated into 20 languages. He has been a columnist
for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book
"The Persian Night" is published by Encounter Books in
London and New York.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments