Syria: It's all in the wording

by Rodger Shanahan - 2 July 2012 1:53PM

One could be forgiven for thinking that an agreement had been hammered out and that international unity had triumphed over regional rivalries in the wake of the recent Geneva conference on Syria. Our own ABC announced that 'an international deal had been reached on peace for Syria', while The Guardian in the UK reported that the plan '...sounded the death knell for the Assad regime'.

The reality is that those who matter (the people who are supposed to come up with a transitional plan) have been dismissive of the whole exercise. 

Of course, while the Syrian Government is unified and the Syrian opposition is not, it is difficult to achieve the 'mutual agreement' called for by the communique about the makeup of the transitional government. So while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that the plan effectively spelt the end of any role for Bashar al-Assad because he would not meet the 'mutual consent' test, she could not say which part of the opposition would give its consent. 

Based on their statements, it would appear the Syrian National Council are not fans of the deal, calling it 'ambiguous', 'a farce' and '..the worst international statement yet to emerge from talks on Syria'. The Syrian-based Local Coordination Committees were equally dismissive, as was the Syrian Government

Much was made of Russia's willingness to consider the possibility of a transitional government, but this was more likely a hedging strategy from Moscow and largely a victory, as Russia appeared to give ground on political transition while removing any reference in the communique to Assad being forced from office. 

In a delightful reprise of old Soviet claims of supporting the political demands of the people over Western interests, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov tweeted that Western 'partners' wanted to decide the outcome of the political process instead of the Syrian people. At least he referred to the West as 'partners' rather than 'powers'.

That's the problem with a communique without a plan; it just ends up being words on a page.

Photo courtesy of the United Nations.

Lowy Institute for International Policy
Australia in the Asian Century

An Interpreter feature which ran from March to September of 2012, published to debate the Gillard Government's 'Australia in the Asian Century' White Paper, then in its research and consultation phase. Click here to see every post published in this series.

For commentary on the published White Paper, click here.

Australia's Defence Challenges

An Interpreter feature exploring Australia's defence challenges as the 2013 Defence White Paper planning process begins. Click here to see every post published in this series.

Selected Interpreter posts also appear in:

 
Business Spectator Caing online The Diplomat
 

Keep up-to-date with The Interpreter through:

iPhone App   iPhone App

RSS Feed   The Interpreter RSS Feed

Email Digest  

To receive a digest of posts from The Interpreter via email, enter your email address:

Receive a daily digest ->
Receive a weekly digest ->

Preview   |   Powered by FeedBlitz

Interpreting the Aid Review

This is the archive of a Lowy Institute blog which ran from January to April of 2011. It was published to debate the Gillard Government's independent aid review, which was then in its research and consultation phase. We offer this archive as a service to researchers and the general public.