Advertisement

Syria transition plan has support, but may not be the answer

The U.S. and other world powers back a U.N.-brokered plan, but key questions remain, including whether a transitional Syrian government could include President Bashar Assad.

July 01, 2012|By Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times
  • U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and counterparts from other nations attend a meeting on Syria at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and counterparts from other… (Fabrice Coffrini, AFP/Getty…)

BEIRUT — The United States and other world powers meeting Saturday in Geneva threw their weight behind a United Nations-brokered plan for a transitional government for Syria, but the move appeared to raise more questions than it answered.

Chief among them: What about Syrian President Bashar Assad?

Russia has rejected the U.S. insistence that Assad go, and the new transitional plan doesn't appear to have resolved their fundamental disagreement.

Beyond the new proposal, the "action group" of nations vowed to launch a fresh diplomatic effort aimed at reviving a U.N.-brokered peace deal that is now in tatters. Why the cease-fire, troop pullbacks and other provisions of the 3-month-old peace deal should fall into place now after being ignored by both sides was unclear.

"I expect the Syrian parties to cooperate," said Kofi Annan, the U.N.-Arab League special envoy who negotiated the original peace plan. "I expect them to understand that the strong transformational wind which is blowing today cannot be resisted — at least it cannot be resisted for long — and that change has to come."

But crafting any kind of lasting accord in polarized, war-ravaged Syria will be a daunting task.

The armed opposition has balked at any dialogue with Assad, whom it regards as a murderer. And Assad calls the rebels "terrorists" who, he recently told an Iranian television interviewer, must be "annihilated."

Although Saturday's communique states that members of Assad's government may serve in the transitional administration, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was unequivocal about the future of Syria's longtime leader.

"Assad will still have to go," Clinton assured reporters in Geneva after hours of sometimes testy talks in the ornate Palais des Nations complex. "He needs to hear loudly and clearly that his days are numbered."

Not so fast, responded Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who has long maneuvered to block any international action to oust Assad, Moscow's last major ally in the Arab world.

"We consider it to be of key importance that there is no attempt in the document to impose upon the Syrian side any kind of transitional process," Lavrov said.

The veteran Russian statesman spoke with the self-assurance of a seasoned diplomat who appeared to have outmaneuvered Clinton, his often-acerbic adversary on the intricate Syria file.

At any rate, the much-heralded transition "road map," as Clinton called it, is less a legal mandate than a somewhat vague set of "guidelines and principles to assist the Syrian parties," in the words of Annan, who called Saturday's meeting in an effort to prevent Syria from plunging into all-out civil war. It is up to the Syrians to decide how to put the transition guidelines into practice, Annan said.

The United States and its allies seem intent on ratcheting up the pressure on Assad by securing a U.N. Security Council imprimatur for the transition proviso. Under such a scenario, Clinton suggested, noncompliance by Assad could trigger penalties under the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7, which envisions sanctions or even military action if members see a threat to peace and security.

But Moscow may not go along. Russia, joined by China, has twice vetoed Security Council resolutions targeting Assad, and could do so again.

The Russians emerged victorious Saturday in a crucial battle of words. At Moscow's insistence, Washington agreed to the removal of draft language barring anyone from the proposed transitional government "whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation" in Syria.

The text was clearly tailored to exclude Assad, though he wasn't mentioned specifically. The Russians balked. The Americans blinked. The controversial wording was excised from the final communique.

But Clinton insisted that the wording dispute really didn't matter. She pointed to revised language requiring that Syrians give their "mutual consent" to anyone on the transition team.

"He [Assad] will never pass the 'mutual consent' test, given the blood on his hands," Clinton said.

The "blood on his hands" formulation, first raised by a journalist in the post-meeting news conference, struck a chord with Annan as well.

"I will doubt that the Syrians, who have fought so hard for their independence … will select people with blood on their hands to lead them," Annan said.

So did Annan agree that Assad should go? No, Annan said. That is up to the people of Syria.

Under Annan's plan, Syria's transitional "national unity" leadership would forge the way for elections, a new constitution and a representative government. But it's going to take some time, maybe a year for "real results," Annan conceded.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|