Latest Syria peace plan falls flat

U.N.-Arab League special envoy and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (R) listens to a speech next to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting of the Action Group for Syria at the United Nations office, in Geneva, on June 30, 2012. / GettyImages

(AP) WASHINGTON - The much-hyped plan to end Syria's misery and guide its transition to democracy appears to have fallen flat despite the endorsement of Western powers.

Russia's objections at an international conference Saturday in Geneva gutted the most stringent conditions on a potential interim leader in Damascus. The Syrian opposition quickly dismissed the proposal as a waste of time and with "no value on the ground."

The U.S. and its allies insist the plan will force Syrian President Bashar Assad from power. Russia disagrees, and Assad is unlikely to acquiesce.

It all leaves U.N. envoy Kofi Annan's efforts to end 15 months of bloodshed no better off than before. More than 14,000 people have died in the uprising against Assad's rule.

There's an urgent need for a solution because the conflict is threatening to spill across borders after Syria shot down a warplane from neighboring Turkey, which responded by setting up anti-aircraft guns along the frontier.

Western nations needed to win Russia's backing for the plan, so they dropped the demand that "those whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation" would be excluded from the process.

That was widely understood to mean Assad and much of his inner circle. While the West insisted, Assad's main allies in Moscow resisted intensely.

Mood pessimistic at Geneva meeting on Syria
Russia: No backing for any plan that calls for Syria's Assad to step down
Turkey sends heavy weapons to Syria border

As a result, the plan contains no criteria for excluding anyone from the transitional government and leaves its composition entirely up to the "mutual consent" of Assad administration and the fractured opposition. Both sides presumably have unlimited veto power over members of the interim government, which could prolong the stalemate and keep Assad in charge.

U.S. and Western officials acknowledge the possibility of that scenario. But they insist that the "mutual consent" language puts the opposition on equal footing with Assad in determining who will be part of the governing body.

Annan said he could not imagine that the Syrian people would choose anyone with blood on their hands to lead them.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, going further, said the plan requires Assad to leave because there is no chance he can meet the "mutual consent" standard.

"What we have done here is to strip away the fiction that he and those with blood on their hands can stay in power," she said.

Yet, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out, the plan excludes no one. Nor does it give anyone without a vested interest any authority to suggest who might or might not be acceptable.

That's why Assad's foes are skeptical, at the very least.

"The country has been destroyed, and they want us then to sit with the killer?" asked opposition figure Haitham Maleh.

Bassma Kodmani, a Paris-based spokeswoman for the main opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC), said the agreement was "ambiguous" and lacks a mechanism or timetable for implementation.

Western officials say they expect Russia and China, which have blocked U.N. action on Syria, to make the case to Assad that he needs to step down for the good of his country. They hope, as Clinton said Saturday, that Assad will "see the writing on the wall" and remove himself from the equation.

So far, though, neither has shown any inclination to back away from defending Assad.

Clinton and her Western counterparts will take the Annan plan to a meeting of the "Friends of Syria" group in Paris on Friday to get a broader endorsement of the deal. This, they hope, will raise the pressure on Russia and China to convince Assad of the need to get the transition started.

Should that fail and the process remain stalled, they intended to return to the U.N. Security Council for a resolution that would compel compliance.

[samXXkiley]

coucou,
Russia will finally surrender, russians insist for a lost cause, the era of Assad is over, it's a reality.
Bashar has massacred his people, the Syrians will never forgive him,
they "will have" the last word, the future will show so.
"au revoir"

[Nikos_Retsos]

The latest Syria plan is not a plan at all. The Russians want Assad to wear his coat inside out and stay in power as the head of a transitional government, and the West pretends it accepted it while it bolster the arms shipments to Syrian opposition to oust him.

Fact: Any plan that leaves the door open to Assad to prevail is rubbish! The Arab Springs have been about busting despotic rulers out of power, not about re-configuring them as democrats and continue business as usual under a phony perception of democracy. In Syria, the Arab Spring is about demolishing the 40-year Assad family rule, as in Egypt was demolishing the 30-year old Mubarak regime. Anything less will be a farce, and a betrayal to the 15.000 Syrian civilians who lost their lives to throw Assad off the saddle.

Russia is foolish to place all bets on Assad, and I feel it is time for the West to get serious, and establish a security zone inside Syria -on the Turkish borders- for Syrian refugee protection, and as a supply depot for rebel weapons and armaments. That will deliver the message to Russia that the West is determined to do way with Assad.
The Russians then will have the choice to force Assad out, or see a pro-U.S. and anti-Russian, anti-Iranian regime in Damascus.

Assad has become un-salvageable, and one way or another he would be ousted - probably violently. Russia's bet on him is akin to betting on a "dead horse," and that proves they are still clueless that their last bastion in Middle East will eventually be overrun! But waiting until it happens would cost thousands thousands more Syrian lives unnecessarily! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

[askagain]

Neither side really wants peace. Both Assad and the rebels are intent on being winners. Why would either side choose peace over winning? To believe that the rebels are any better than Assad is nonsense. Both sides are committing crimes against humanity and that will continue until there is a clear winner.

[Don_Koh]

The concession to take out the requirement for "...Stability and Reconciliation..." in order to get the plan passed, does seem to contradict the plan and seems to negate the plan in the first place.

It is arguably a weak diplomatic action and did not effectively force and demand what is right... ie, an end to the violence and a transitional govt process which necessitates a path to stability and reconciliation from the start.

That being said, this plan might be successful to achieve an effective truce and reformation period however, if the "mutually consenting" component of the plan is sufficiently effective in forcing transitional members of the new cabinet to drop all past totalitarian police actions and barbaric acts of violence to achieve their collective goals. If that includes a reformed Assad willing to reform his personal doctrine and cease support for all previous policies of repression, then so be it... if it's mutually consensual.

If however, certain and 'vested' civilian populations are not content with the change in policy and govt and take to the streets again in protest... and then they are brutally crushed by pro-extremist, pro-Assad militia and military... then everything is back to square one and an obvious plan B will be necessary.

What could be justified in the upcoming "Friends of Syria" summit though, would be to unilaterally declare an unequivocal and explicit amendment to the UN Plan to 'Condemn all deadly violence', in order to reinforce the body and intent of the international expectations to halt continuation of all brutal violence and disqualify the deadly violence as a legit domestic policy, past and present. "FoS" would in this respect be in every right to reinforce maximal and credible external pressure on the current regime to concede and accept the 'deadly repression' as being absolutely unjustified and illegitimate..

[UForgotPoland]

A bullet to Assad's head is the first step.