David Singer: Syrian Slaughterhouse Shames America – Undermines United Nations

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

image: www.newsweek.com

He writes:

The collapse of the Syrian ceasefire negotiated by Russia and America has led to bitter recriminations in the UN Security Council as each blames the other for the breakdown.

Civilians in Aleppo are paying the price.

Humanitarian partners in Eastern Aleppo have told Save the Children International:

“One hospital said that 43 per cent of the injured they treated yesterday were children, and the ambulance crew with Shafak, a Syrian NGO, said more than 50 per cent of the casualties they have picked up in the last 48 hours are children. Doctors are working round the clock to try to save them, but children are dying on the floors of hospitals due to critical shortages of basic medicines and equipment, including ventilators, anaesthetics and antibiotics. Severe cases need to be transferred out of Eastern Aleppo for treatment, but all roads are blocked.”

Sonia Khush, Save the Children’s Syria Director, pleaded:

“The UN Security Council has a chance to right the wrong and prevent more suffering when it meets today in New York. They cannot leave the room until they agree an immediate ceasefire, with roads opened to allow us to bring desperately needed food, clean water and medical supplies in.

The information they have provided paints a picture of unimaginable violence and suffering for children and their families”

The Security Council predictably could agree on nothing. America had failed to positively respond to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s warning on 2 June 2015:

“The U.S.’s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick” 

 US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf had quickly dismissed Lavrov’s message – telling reporters that:

“… we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.

That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Syria’s civilian population meanwhile continued being murdered, injured and traumatised either by the Syrian Army, the American-backed rebel groups fighting to remove Assad or by Islamic State occupying huge chunks of Syria. America again failed to respond to a further plea by Lavrov on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all” 

The eventual execution of a ceasefire agreement between Russia and America on 9 September 2016 only promised joint American-Russian co-operation to attack Islamic State and al-Nusrah without any United Nations imprimatur. This agreement is now dead in the water with the collapse of the ceasefire.

America’s recalcitrance has been shameful.

image: www.middleeasteye.net

Obama must now put the resolution of the Syrian civil war on the backburner.

America and Russia need to stop trading barbs on the ceasefire fiasco and focus on resolving the common problem confronting the world in Syria – the defeat of Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

Co-sponsoring a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the United Nations Charter authorising United Nations military action against Islamic State will lock in all 193 member States.

Syria’s citizens can start to hope that Syria will ultimately become reunified once again
America’s reputation will be considerably enhanced – as will Russia’s, which has been badly damaged in the last few years.

The United Nations will no longer be seen as a moral disgrace – but a moral place.

David Singer: Russia and America Must Jointly Confront Islamic State

As always, I'm delighted to post the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The possibility that Russia and America may at long last be seeking common ground on confronting Islamic State has been increased with US Secretary of State John Kerry revealing that his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov [pictured together, left] has approached America proposing military talks over Syria. Kerry told reporters:

"The Russians proposed in the conversation I had today and the last conversation specifically that we have military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss ... precisely what will be done to de-conflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run, and to have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are” 

Russia is concerned to ensure that America will not take the opportunity to use any jointly agreed action against Islamic State as a pretext to try and oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or weaken his hold on power.

America suspects that Moscow’s motives in sending 200 Russian naval infantry soldiers, seven tanks, a portable air traffic control station and components of an air defense system to an Assad-stronghold airbase near Latakia on the Mediterranean coast is part of an ongoing military build-up to support Assad’s continued hold on power.

Russia would also not have been too impressed with White House spokesman Josh Earnest reportedly stating a few days earlier:

“What we would prefer to see from the Russians is a more constructive engagement with the 60-member coalition that’s led by the United States that’s focused on degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL”

Eleven members of that US coalition comprise a group known as the London 11 supporting and arming the rebels fighting Assad for the last five years.

American and Russian distrust of the other’s possible motives in Syria were successfully put aside when they co-operated to have all chemical weapons in Syria held by Assad and his opponents destroyed by jointly securing the passing of Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on 27 September 2013.

Such agreement – reached between Russia and America without threatening to either restrict or extend Assad’s hold on power – was an impressive diplomatic achievement. However it only came about after they both decided to focus on destroying all chemical weapons in Syria – rather than focusing on whether Assad or the rebels was responsible for the use of chemical weapons that caused the deaths of 1429 Syrians on 21 August 2013.

Security Council Resolution 2118 ended the deadlock that had paralysed the Security Council’s efforts to end the civil war in Syria for the previous thirty months.

Russia and America now need to solely focus on defeating Islamic State - whilst putting their support for Assad or his overthrow on the backburner until Islamic State is defeated.

They can achieve this by jointly sponsoring another Security Council resolution under Chapter V11 article 42 of the United Nations Charter which empowers the Security Council to:

“take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”. 

Every day’s delay in securing the passage of such a resolution - and acting on it
– means further deaths, injuries and suffering for the Syrian and Iraqi populations at the hands of Islamic State. Internal displacement of those populations inside Syria and Iraq, or to neighbouring countries – or even into the European Union – has had disastrous consequences that have shocked all people of compassion and goodwill over the last three weeks.

The time for procrastinating, arguing and blaming is surely over.

"Out Of Tune And Out Of Time": The Quartet, Negotiations, and the Palestinian Authority

That frequent commentator on Middle East politics, David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and founder member of the International Analysts Network, has written another of his perspicacious articles.  Coming as usual via the antipodean J-Wire service, it's entitled "Palestine: Quartet Misses The Beat".

Writes David Singer:

'The utter  futility inherent in pursuing the two-state solution – the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan  – was brought home this week when the most powerful negotiating team ever assembled in history – the Quartet – was unable to come up with a jointly acceptable statement to persuade Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to resume direct negotiations.

The Quartet comprises America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

The two day meeting of the Quartet in Washington was attended by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Quartet special envoy to the Middle East Tony Blair.

The player out of tune was apparently Sergey Lavrov.

He reportedly prevented the Quartet from issuing a demand that the PA acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State as the basis for negotiations in exchange for Israel’s acceptance of the 1949 Armistice lines.

He also reportedly refused to refrain from raising the proposed PA statehood bid at the UN in September.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145633

It is this kind of pussyfooting around that encourages the PA  to maintain its rejectionist stance.

Israel is the Jewish State referred to in the United Nations1947 Partition Plan which provided:

 “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.”

The Soviet Union voted in favor of this resolution. Russia  has already seen more than one million Russian Jews or of Jewish origin emigrate from Russia to Israel in the 1980s and 1990s.

Why Mr Lavrov should be reluctant to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish State in these circumstances seems very curious indeed.

Certainly the PA has railed against making any such concession. This has been one of the major stumbling blocks to resolving the conflict that firstly the Oslo Accords and then the Quartet-sponsored Reagan Roadmap were designed to end.

PA resistance to acknowledge the existence of a Jewish State is writ large in the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization which contains the following  racist and Jew-hating provisions:

“Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not     an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong. “ (Article 20)

“Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation     for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-à-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and     imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for the support of all the progressive and peaceful forces and urge them     all, irrespective of their affiliations and beliefs, to offer the Palestinian people all aid and support in their just struggle for the liberation of their homeland.” (Article 22)

It really is time the Quartet took a stance and told  the unelected and unconstitutional PA  President – Mahmoud Abbas – who also is Chairman of the PLO  and head of its largest faction – Fatah – that maintaining these provisions in the PLO Charter pose insurmountable obstacles to peace.
The Quartet had the opportunity to do this in Washington this week and was simply not up to the task.
Tony Blair had explained what the Quartet  hoped to achieve when he stated on 26 June:

“I actually think this is a moment where we need to be quite bold, take the initiative and try and set out a framework for revitalising the negotiation. And if you did that and it succeeded, by the way, you completely transform the situation.”

He continued:

“What we’re working is to see whether it’s possible to get a framework of principles that could guide a negotiation. Because the problem at the moment is that the Palestinians particularly     don’t want to go back into a negotiation with an Israeli government they frankly don’t really trust, unless they are assured that the negotiation is going to be steered in a way that produces     something. So, the question is, and this is the relevance of President’s Obama’s speech and the various Quartet statements, the question is can we, as a – as a quartet, as an international     community get an agreed situation as to – as to what’s the framework within which you then have a negotiation.”

Any such boldness and initiative disappeared down the drain this week.

Israel has already made it perfectly clear it was ready to sit down and negotiate with the PA without preconditions. The PA refuses to do so. That is its perfect right – but it must be made aware there is a price to pay.

The quickest way to get both parties to negotiate is to let the PA know in no uncertain terms that the failure to negotiate unconditionally and immediately will result in the Quartet walking away and leaving the parties to their own devices.

Seven years of failed diplomacy by the Quartet has to come to an end at some time.

The Roadmap is negotiations-based. By failing to get Israel and the PA to resume those negotiations  – the two-state solution, Oslo, the Roadmap and the Quartet will continue to founder to their inevitable denouement and irrelevance should the PA unilaterally approach the UN in September.

Only firm and decisive action by the Quartet can have any chance of stopping this happening.

Given its poor performance this week the Quartet has not done its prestige or influence any good. It has only confirmed itself as being out of tune and out of time.'