Paris Attacks Drive World Powers’ Push for Syria Cease-fire

[jpak]

Source: Voice of America

VIENNA —World powers meeting in Vienna to discuss Syria’s political future on Saturday are pressing for a cease-fire in the Middle East conflict by January 1, to be followed by a political transition and subsequent elections.

The Islamic State group's attacks late Friday in Paris, which left scores of people dead or wounded, added urgency to this latest round of talks.

"Our resolve to eliminate this scourge ... only grows stronger in the wake of this brutality," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said at a joint news conference following the day's talks.

Kerry said the United States and participants from the European Union, the United Nations and at least 16 countries largely agreed on the need for an inclusive Syrian political process, along with the cease-fire. That process would include representatives of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime as well as those from a broad spectrum of opposition groups.

<more>

Read more: http://www.voanews.com/content/paris-attacks-focus-world-powers-syria-talks/3057860.html

[winter is coming]

1. Good. n/t

[McKim]

2. At Last!

As last some common sense instead of war bluster, swagger and testosterone overload. They have tried everything else!

[plus5mace]

3. Finally some good news.

I hope this holds.

[Abouttime]

4. We are so fortunate

To have Obama and Kerry in charge. Now if they would just deliver the architects of the wars that started all of this to The Hague progress could really start.
There will be no peace until we, The United States of America, owns up to our responsibility for this mess. Kerry and Obama know this, they are in a really tough place, for them to do the right thing would cause hell to come down upon them from the radical right wing of the Repukes but I see no other option. To stop this we need to do our part, admit our mistakes and gut our military budget. Imagine if instead of aircraft carriers, b2 bombers and F35 airplanes that don't work we use the money for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the Middle East.
This and giving up our blind support of Israel would go a long way in ending terrorism. War is not the answer, war caused this problem, the solution is the opposite of war. We did it with Nazi Germany, we did it with Imperial Japan both formidable enemies. The terrorists are really nothing more than kids without a future, if we give them hope for a better future rather than a hellfire missile we might see different results.

[KingCharlemagne]

23. Why I was told just yesterday that expediting Bush and Cheney would threaten

our very constitutional order. This by a Hillary partisan, mind you.

rush me my vapors. the horror the horror.

[4139]

5. Why would ISIS and al Qaeda join a ceasefire???

This is meaningless fluff to provide cover for our and the Europeans role in the Syrian civil war after a terrible day

[geek tragedy]

6. That's the question, isn't it?

Who's included in the resulting process, or is it just a way to give Assad legitimacy?

[karynnj]

8. It could come to that - even with provisions that the Syrian diaspora will be allowed to vote

Last edited Sat Nov 14, 2015, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

If elections, where the ability to vote is extended beyond the Assad strongholds, still elect Assad, is there a real democratic way to remove him? Even war crimes charges would just mean that he might not be able to leave Syria -- just as the indicted leader of Sudan.

It does seem that a process that resolves the civil war and stops the bloodshed is needed.

[flamingdem]

15. Allowing the vote might be a way for the US to save face

Lavrov was saying to Kerry that Assad has a lot of support. Oh democracy.

[karynnj]

17. I think it is more complicated than that

My take on all of Kerry's comments on Syria - even in 2014 - was that the horror needed to stop. Even in 2014, he spoke most of Assad's atrocities against his own people. Yesterday, he credited Obama with letting him work with Lavrov on a conclusion to the civil war.

I suspect that we have a small window where US politics affect policy less than usual - as Clinton long ago separated herself from Obama on Syria and Obama does not face an election - either for himself or a mid term. Bad as Assad might be, this civil war is unbelievably brutal on all sides -- and has made ISIS stronger. ( Consider that ISIS would not have been able to incubate in Syria and then move back to Iraq without it. ISIS might have revived - as its leadership included many Saddam Sunni military officials - and they would still have reacted to being given no power under Maliki.)

I think the call for a new constitution and a vote is more than "face saving" - it really is a chance to do better than the both Assad and his father. Not to mention, there really is no way to just "end" the violence through any US/western action -- even if we played a role in inciting it. This may be an attempt to reintegrate genuinely "moderate" rebels who want to be part of a more peaceful Syria. Given the US encouragement under both Bush and Obama (mostly in the first term) for people to stand up against the government, this effort - even if it ultimately pulls in few people - is what we owe these people. (Note that McCain et al actually think we "owe them" toppling the entire regime and putting them in power - even as we don't know who "them" actually are.)

Every analysis I ever read, post 2011 or 2012, spoke of Obama having only bad options in Syria. If this works, where "works" is defined as Syria (other than the ISIS controlled area) becoming relatively peaceful, this is better than any alternative that I have seen anyone propose. The timing of the deal initially concerned me because the tentative plan for the Syrian election in May 2017 - after Obama leaves office. However, just as with the Iran deal, IF everything is working towards a resolution, following this plan that is backed again by the P5 +1, any President taking office in mid 2017 will have very little ability to change things that far along. (It DOES raise a concern that neo cons could - like Kissinger 1968 and Reagan/Bush 2000 - might try to muck things up by promising their rebels that they could gain by waiting. Here, the deal might have made this less likely by overtly stating that ACTIONS of rebel groups will determine if they go on the ISIS/AQ list or the list to be involved with a government going forward. )

[flamingdem]

20. Thanks for sharing your thoughts

and broad perspective.

About the "rebels" in Syria - this includes the Kurds. Why they're not mentioned more by Kerry I suspect is 1. Turkey 2. attempt to be inclusive of other moderate non-Kurd Syrians.

We favor the Kurds against Turkeys wishes. The Kurds will gain power in this process I suspect.

Important point you made about Obama having a space in which to be a dealmaker before Hillary (or Trump, ouch) arrives on the scene.

[karynnj]

21. I agree that the Syrian Kurds quite definitely have to be part of that group

I suspect that he preferred not to name any groups because he was stressing that they want a diverse group - who will abide by the ceasefire. I agree that the Turks absolutely don't want more power for the Kurds. However, no one is speaking - at least in the Kerry/Lavrov talks of dividing the country. Given the large numbers of ethnicities, that likely would not be a good model.

One thing that had been in the news a month ago or so was the fear that the Kurds could ally with Assad - out of fear for what happens if his government implodes. (Both were against ISIS and al nusra - just as the coalition is. )

It would make me more comfortable with the specter of a HRC Presidency if many of these things are taken off the table.

[flamingdem]

22. I posted this NYT article about the Kurds that discusses

how they tolerate Assads army in their territory - think it's at the end. (Plus, the way the Kurds are developing their own form of government based on the ideas of a US intellectual).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027347672

[karynnj]

24. Thanks for the link nt

[karynnj]

7. Neither of them are included in the ceasefire

The ceasefire is to be between the Assad regime and non terrorist rebels -- per comments, ACTIONS taken after the cease fire start will determine if some rebels are to be added to the list of terrorists. The idea is to resolve the Syrian civil war .... and to defeat bot AL Nusra (AQ) and ISIS (or Daesh).

This meeting was scheduled long before the terror attack. There are about 20 nations involved. If there is any connection, it is more likely that the attack was timed to detract from this scheduled meeting and the earlier ones, which have been described as more serious than previous US/Russian/UN efforts.

As to meaningless fluff, if it were for the US and Europe - why are Iran, Russia and many Arab countries involved in the meeting?

[Bonhomme Richard]

9. +1. The point of the cease-fire is to concentrate on the terrorist. n/t

[Jesus Malverde]

10. The rebels by their very nature..bombing, shooting and killing.

Are terrorists.

[PersonNumber503602]

13. By that logic, would that make the rebels in Ukraine terrorists too?

[PersonNumber503602]

12. I wonder how many FSA or other 'moderate' rebels will end up going over to ISIS and al-nursa

if this works out as planned. It should be interesting to see.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. Why would Assad join a ceasefire?

The point of the ceasefire is to replace him.

[Yupster]

11. Completely delusional

Are we supposed to have a cease fire with ISIS keeping the land they currently occupy? Or are they supposed to kindly go away?

And why should Russia or Assad want a ceasefire? They can kick ISIS out of Syria within a year and dump them into Iraq.

This seems so delusional?

[PersonNumber503602]

14. It's not a ceasefire with groups like ISIS and al-nursa

but rather the so-called moderate groups like the FSA. I'm sure there are more than few who truly are not islamic extremists, and will work within the rules of the ceasefire. Although I'm sure we'll see many people who supposedly moderate rebels go over to either ISIS or al-nursa.

[karynnj]

16. this may eliminate the complexity of the US position

While allowing Syrians, including ex pats, to choose their government. It could lead to the end of the civil war. Assad, by things he did, is likely to be charged with war crimes.

[Yupster]

18. Are there more than a few in the FRA who are not extremists?

Are there even more than a few left in the FSA?

The Civil War is being fought between ISIS and other extremist groups and the Assad government backed by Russia and Iran.

The West has tried and failed miserably at creating a moderate opposition. Last I heard this effort was being dropped.

As for ISIS and Assad they will have some tough decisions to make.

Should ISIS agree to free and fair elections within its territory? I would guess their answer would be yes so they are allowed to keep their territory, but the elections will certainly never happen.

Should Assad allow free and fair elections and submit himself to a war crimes trial or should he work with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to win the Civil War? Tough decision isn't it?

My guess is the ceasefire with the moderate opposition talk is just a polite way for them to go away quietly since the US will no longer be funding them, all eight of them.

[Sunlei]

25. probably would be least expensive to visa the couple thousand? fighters we & allies support &

get them out of Syria. Their wives and kids are probably already refugees living outside of Syria somewhere.

I don't think Assad/Russia/china will ever give up 'power' especially the coastal port area.