Kofi Annan is stepping down as UN-Arab League envoy for the Syria conflict at the end of the month, United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon said in a statement, as talks began to find a successor.
“Kofi Annan deserves our profound admiration for the selfless way in which he has put his formidable skills and prestige to this most difficult and potentially thankless of assignments,” Ban said.
But Annan was not so genial. He blamed “finger pointing and name calling” at the UN Security Council for his decision to quit.
Annan’s plan was viable in and of itself, but it became unworkable because both sides in the Syria conflict were backed by foreign powers, which meant neither side felt they needed to compromise.
Foreign meddling on behalf of all sides has been instrumental in prolonging the conflict by emboldening both sides and making a political settlement more remote. While Russia and Iran continue to support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the US and its allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf states continue to aid and weaponize the Syrian rebels.
Annan had said as much last month, explaining that while Russia had received a lot of criticism for continuing to back the violent President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, “very few things are said about other countries that send arms and money and weigh on the situation on the ground.”
“Syria indeed has become an arena for outside meddling, but the meddling has been far more effective at sustaining the fighting than ending it,” says a report from the International Crisis Group. “Because the mission’s success was predicated on finding middle ground when most parties yearned for a knockout punch, few truly wished it well, even as no one wanted to be caught burying it.”
UN rights chief Navi Pillay last week condemned the continued flow of weapons from foreign powers to both sides in the Syrian conflict. “The ongoing provision of arms to the Syrian government and to its opponents feeds additional violence,” she said in the text of remarks made to the Security Council. “Any further militarization of the conflict must be avoided at all costs.”
The support has continued even though outside powers are well aware that both sides in the conflict have committed serious atrocities and human rights abuses and despite the fact that experts have repeatedly said such policies are worsening the conflict.
James Dobbins, director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center and a former US assistant secretary of state told NPR recently, “the external environment in which sides are providing arms to both of the contending parties—all of that suggests that the situation’s going to continue to deteriorate.”
I find Glaser's take on Syria very, very strange – and very different from what appears in the rest of AW.C.
I cannot imagine the insightful Justin Raimondo penning such a piece.
There are two counts against Glaser's outlook.
First, he blames both foreign sides equally, US/NATO versus Russia/Iran. That is wrong. The CIA was in there from the outset, and while Russia and Iran have supported Annan's peaceful sentiment, the US and its allies. And the US is an Empire which set its sites on Syria and Iran back in 2001 according to Wesley Clark. Or as Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post, US policy in the Middle East for at least 40 years has been to prevent a regional hegemon from emerging – or more honestly to prevent the displacement of the US/Israel hegemon. Glaser's take might even fit nicely in an imperial, loyal opposition op-ed in the NYT or The New Republic or National Review. In fact as he points out, it was the opinion of a Rand functionary who used to work for State, delivered on NPR, a conduit for Pentagon and State Dept. propaganda.
Second, the duty of intellectuals in a given society is to direct their criticism at their own government, for that is the one over which they have some influence and which they finance with their taxes. That is even truer in the metropolis (aka, center) of the Empire.
I hope Glaser will think more about his outlook. AW.C is a precious asset.
I tend to agree with you. Both sides cannot be tretaed equally, especially when one considers the designs the West has had over those countries perceived as "enemies" by the US and its puppets. Besides, it is no appropiate to equate the legal supply of weapons Russia has been historically providing Syria with the arming of the opposition because the exclusive aim here is to unseat Assda and destroy his government.
Since it's NATO, don't we need to remember the 'great game'? Turkey could make seagoing export rough sailing for Russia, to balance Russia's occasional threat to starve Europe of gas, but only if Turkey doesn't have to worry about Syria and Iraq letting loose their Kurds. Maybe it doesn't matter any more, but if NATO/US got total control over Bosporus, Suez and Hormuz, …well, it makes sense for China and Russia to try to prevent that at least.
What holds NATO back is that their respective countries are still democracies that will toss out politicians if their standard of living drops low enough. Hence, the pressure to give their constituents "the good life." All this while keeping the peoples of the MIddle East at a decent standard of living. Something has got to give. Either replace the voting populations of NATO countries, push commodity prices down or force the world to buy more American corn.
John is one of those “democrats” with mutual relationship to both sides, but Obama playing the game better then John dose, Syria and all other crises in middle east, one way or the other, is the work of a non existence democracy in US or EU, here I don’t think that John been reading the Paul Wolfowitz book nor he has been reading the book by Henry Kissinger, nor he understand the concept that US is always been at war in middle east for what is there not what people are or look like, in reality US militarism regimes nor NATO don’t give a damn about people in general, but what they can get from people, now if is their life is because these two systems are militarism regime paving the way for the political system to steal the peoples property, yet the subject is a matter of how John wants to interpret the issue. That is why John and people at AW like hime have a one sided openion, they work both ways getting something published under their name.
As any other US president Obama is doing the same thing, working with everyone, even the US and Arabs mercenaries, Jihadist and terrorists to have a war under his name calling it “democracy”.
Look: NATO is the militarism regime established by US and for the US strategical, political and economical interests, since 1990 US and NATO have found a common interests wanting to stop the growth of Russia, China, India, Iran and any other countries that might, just might stand a way of US and EU interests.., for that matter Madeline Albright started the Balkan war…, John needs to read Paul Wolfowitz letters, books, his lectures and all other materials out there.
Look: NATO is simply a land grabbing instrument doing the job that US is not able doing it alone any longer. If you think that there is a democracy behind all that US and EU militarism you are wrong, is like saying that religious is the principals of democracy and therefore people need to obey the shari'ah law to become democrat.
All that wars in middle east is because they want to stop the growth and demand by the people to be independent, Syria is one of them, nor for that matter if there wasn’t any oil in Saudi Arabia the feudalism system of Ben Saud or the UAE “kings” wouldn’t be the most important partner of US nor EU buying all that weapons from US and EU. Look, democracy is a universal concept but that doesn't mean that you can throw all kind of junk in there wanting it to function, such understanding is the beginning of a dictatorial system wanting to stop democracy and thats what Barack Hussien Obama, David Cameron and not so Angel Markell of Germany are about, thats what the US and NATO militarism regimes are about.