More War than Peace

[bemildred]

WINCHESTER – “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” George Santayana’s dictum seems particularly appropriate nowadays, with the Arab world, from Syria and Iraq to Yemen and Libya, a cauldron of violence; Afghanistan locked in combat with the Taliban; swaths of central Africa cursed by bloody competition – often along ethnic/religious lines – for mineral resources. Even Europe’s tranquility is at risk – witness the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine, which before the current ceasefire had claimed more than 6,000 lives.

What explains this resort to armed conflict to solve the world’s problems? Not so long ago, the trend was toward peace, not war. In 1989, with the collapse of communism, Francis Fukuyama announced “the end of history,” and two years later President George H. W. Bush celebrated a “new world order” of cooperation between the world’s powers.
Support Project Syndicate’s mission

At the time, they were right. World War II, with a death toll of at least 55 million, had been the high point of mankind’s collective savagery. But from 1950 to 1989 – the Korean War through the Vietnam War and on to the end of the Cold War – deaths from violent conflict averaged 180,000 a year. In the 1990s, the toll fell to 100,000 a year. And in the first decade of this century, it fell still more, to around 55,000 a year – the lowest rate in any decade in the previous 100 years and equivalent to just over 1,000 a year for the “average armed conflict.”

Sadly, as I note in my new book The World in Conflict, the trend is now turning upward. Given that so many of Africa’s wars, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the conflict in Somalia, began decades ago, the explanation lies elsewhere: in the Muslim world from northern Nigeria to Afghanistan and beyond.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/violent-conflict-rising-death-toll-by-john-andrews-1-2016-02

[Jefferson23]

1. Author is correct of course, but the Saudi rulers are dumb and dangerous as a result. n/t

[bemildred]

2. Yes, unfortunately.

What is going on in Munich is very interesting, they are setting out to identify whom to negotiate with. The guys who show they can say "halt" and then people will stop fighting will get negotiated with, the ones who can't will keep getting bombed and suffer from the lack of resources, since they have nothing to negotiate with. They can put down their weapons and fade away or wait for the end (or go looking for it).

I see hints that Kerry and Lavrov are in cahoots on this, which is wise, and the Chinese made a strong statement I posted down in FA. If they make the Turks and Sauds eat their peas things could get better. The EU seems "highly motivated" too.

Commentary: Chinese FM calls for implementation of hard-won agreement at Munich Syria talks

"China advocates a strict implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on Syria which was adopted last year, especially the commitment to find a political solution to the Syria issue," Wang told reporters.

China believes that all parties in Syria should act in the interests of Syrian people and try to overcome difficulties to restart peace talks as soon as possible, so that Syrian people can decide on their own future.

As for regional powers, Wang noted that they, in particular those who have a major impact on the situation in Syria, should stop blaming each other and play a constructive role in implementing the agreement reached on Friday concerning ceasefire and humanitarian aid.

The minister also called on countries outside the region including ISSG members, especially the United States and Russia, to assume responsibility and play their due role in implementing the newly-reached agreement as well as the UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Maybe if they let the Sauds save Raqqa and retain influence there, they will get on board, it's not like they don't have enough problems already. I don't think anybody else wants to govern a hostile population in the Sunni areas, I would not let Assad have it, and the Sauds could use it to preen themselves on standing up for the Sunni.

The thing to watch for is where they try to enter Syria, if they enter on the South, that might be Ok, if they try to go in and set up a safe zone in the North, watch out.

[Jefferson23]

3. Kerry and Lavrov yes, I agree and I think we had hoped that would come about sooner, but

Erdogan and Saudi..ugh mess....at least they're there now..sounds hopeful.

Thanks for sharing that, bemildred.

[bemildred]

4. Zarif: Iran can work with Saudis on Syria, Islamic State

MUNICH — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Friday that he believes his country could work with regional rival Saudi Arabia on the Syrian conflict and common threats such as the Islamic State group.

“We believe there is nothing in our region that would exclude Iran and Saudi working together for a better future for all of us,” Zarif told an audience at the Munich Security Conference.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a bloody competition for influence across much of the Middle East, including support for opposing sides in the wars of Syria and Yemen.

But Zarif said there was room to identify common challenges, particularly jihadists such as the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/zarif-iran-can-work-with-saudis-on-syria-islamic-state/

[bemildred]

5. Why Assad's Army Has Not Defected

Four years ago, Turkey’s then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that within in a few weeks he would be praying in Damascus’s Umayyad Mosque, as Assad was about to fall. Similarly, Israel’s most decorated soldier, former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, predicted that Assad and his military would be toppled within weeks. That was at the beginning of 2012, when there were no Iranian soldiers on the ground or Russian planes in the skies.

As another round of Geneva peace talks collapses and the world wonders what’s next for Syria, it is time to begin with the warnings of Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brzezinski. Kissinger and Brzezinski, the most seasoned and influential U.S. policymakers on the Middle East since World War II, have gone against popular opinion and stated that President Bashar al-Assad has more support than all the opposition groups combined.

It is no secret that the Saudis and Qataris, with full U.S. support, have tried to bribe some of Assad’s innermost circles to defect. The all-important professional military cadre of the Syrian Arab Army, however, has remained thoroughly loyal.

The Syrian Arab Army was mostly a conscript force with only about eighty thousand professionals in its ranks. At the start of the war, much was made of the “defections” of thousands of officers, but these were mere conscripts who never wanted to be in the army in the first place, and would also have done anything to escape conscription in peacetime. The professional ranks, meanwhile, are still very strong and religiously pluralistic. When the Syrian opposition talks about a future pluralistic Syria, they fail to realize that while they may theoretically be pluralists in Geneva, Washington and Vienna, their representatives on the ground are allied with the most sectarian terrorist groups the Middle East has ever seen.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-assads-army-has-not-defected-15190