With the UN General Assembly setting up a growing call for international negotiations on ending the Syrian Civil War, the Obama Administration is taking a risky position, reportedly trying to keep all Western European nations from taking part in the negotiations.
The international nature of the talks had most assuming that the P5+1 would be formally involved, as they were with the Iran nuclear negotiations, but while the US is okay with Russia being at the talks, they want to cut out the other four, meaning China and all three EU members would be sidelined.
The US is envisioning a five nation effort, led by them, and including Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The assumption from this is likely that Turkey and Saudi Arabia will back the US position, giving them a 3-2 majority at the negotiating table.
Russia is likely to make a lot of diplomatic points with their position, which urges the inclusion of all P5+1 members, as well as several other Middle Eastern states, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.
US officials are defending there position as believing that the talks will be easier if they restrict it to those “directly involved” in Syria, but this must inevitably raise the question of whether the US is really “involved” in any way that France, for instance, is not.
The real risk of including France, Germany, and Britain is the appeal to reasonableness they are liable to bring to the table, as the US can count on the Saudis and Turkish government to both unconditionally spurn any unity deal that keeps Assad in power in any form, while the European nations are more likely to push for some sort of compromise deal that starts a transition.
Why would France, Germany, and Britain be any less likely to please their masters in Washington than Saudi Arabia or Turkey? If anything, France in particular seems to be even more eager to bomb, bomb, bomb than the US these days.
Quite right. Europe wants to see Putin gone and, for the moment, they need US help to do that. They're not going to oppose the US on anything until they get that.
while Micheal is quite right they would see Puitn disappear they also don't want to look llike idiotic lapdogs of DC which is the moment of course DC will drop them in it.
Unlike Saudi Arabia and Turkey, EU nations have their own political and economic interests that are not 100% aligned to US hegemony. Germany mentioned that perhaps Bashar Assad might have a good reason to be involved in planning the eradication of ISIS inside Syria, a bold break with the rest of the US satraps. France on the other hand has been in the lead of destabilizing and attacking Syria, it's former colony.
Some European powers seek stability and peace as well as expanding markets instead of commiting economic suicide to please a superpower in steep decline.
Refugees.
of course the us is directly involved! we caused the "civil" war at the
outset by providing arms and training to terrorists who could
co-opt the peaceful demonstrations against assad, blow up
random soldiers and police, and invite government "oppression",
thereby justifying providing arms and training to terrorists!
Obama Administration is taking a risky position, reportedly trying to keep all
Western European nations from taking part in the negotiations…'
The Europeans could redirect the refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq to America.
After all, it was the USG who started this nightmare in the first place.
I recall Bush, the war criminal, boasting, 'Mission Accomplished'
European governments are already re-directing the refugees to the US!
Ain't gonna happen. US won't take more than 65,000. Europe knows that and will push for an expedited resolution of the conflict.
Bless their hearts– American politicians are so used to gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement they want to apply it to international affairs. What a tragic image of democracy they present to the world.
Oh well I'm sure the Russians can invite theose spurned to help out with a grown up solution.
There might be another reason why "US Seeks to Cut Europeans Out of Syria Peace Talks"
and that is that the Russians and French might co-ordinate their military actions jointly
against ISIS/ISIL and other rebel factions. (ie joint Russian/French military actions)
(in the same way that the Minsk peace agreements seek to end the current
Ukrainian civil war–by excluding the US from the talks—-)
Victoria Nuland ( 1 of the factions in the US Government) is not going to like this.
As the last paragraph shows, this is just a re-hash of the supposed "split" between the US and the EU designed to let Putin win in Ukraine. I loved the bit about European "reasonableness". Obvoiusly such reasonableness has its limits. I didn't notice anything about European reasonableness in Mr Raimondo's artice of the other day on Catalonia! This is the problem with pretext politics: the pretext that supports the pre-ordained conclusion in one place contradicts it in another!
There might be another reason why "US Seeks to Cut Europeans Out of Syria Peace Talks"
and that is that the last thing the US would like to see
is the Russians and the French co-ordinating their attacks against ISIS/ISIL &co
(similar to Minsk peace deal to bring about end to Ukrainian civil war—
Victoria Nuland ( one of the factions in the US government) just isnt going to like it)
Look: Syria has been announced as a de facto state, which means anyone can participate taking it if they can. In another words, Saudis and their caliphate regime (ISIS) and for their religion expansion, for Qatari brutal and illegal monarchs, for Saudis-Wahhabism yet another fake religious Islamic sect, for Turkish Erdogan fake Islamic democracy, for US imperial ambitions and some Europeans. There Europeans diplomatic, political parties, unions and people forces that are engaged in not being part of such inhumane wars created by US and European government, present or passed, which is the reason for USG not wanting Europe to be part of negotiations with legitimate government of Syria, because USG needs to keep its bit on regime change in Syria, because Europeans to some degree have woken up and start realizing what it's at stake for them if they lose the Syrian legitimate government to Saudis barbarism, to save the face of yet another failed policy's by USG, USG needs to say anything and everything to save their international prestige, which it doesn't have.
A 3-2 split is meaningless. The discussion will not be majority rule. It will be, "Who has the advantage and momentum on the ground," and possibly, "Who has shown they have air superiority in Syria."