This House would abandon Kofi Annan’s peace plan for Syria

The plan has clearly failed; its primary goal was to end the violence but a total of at least 13,000 Syrians have been killed since the beginning of the uprising.[1] Around 100 people are killed each day and even Annan himself has conceded the ceasefire is ‘failing’.[2] Assad clearly believes the Annan plan has failed having told his cabinet "When one is in a state of war, all our policies and capabilities must be used to secure victory"[3] this is not the kind of language of someone looking to take part in a peaceful solution. Everything in the plan relies on some kind of ceasefire; that has not happened and without it the rest of the points cannot be implemented. The plan must therefore be abandoned as Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated when creating the monitoring mission "If there is not a sustained cessation of violence, full freedom of movement for U.N. personnel and rapid meaningful progress on all other aspects of the six-point plan, then we must all conclude that this mission has run its course."[4]

[1] Barari, Hassan, ‘A road map for political solution to Syrian crisis’, Al Arabiya News, 1 July 2012.

[2] Blomfield, Adrian, ‘Syria: Kofi Annan claims peace plan can be revived’, The Telegraph, 9 July 2012.

[3] ‘Assad says Syria ‘in a state of war’, Aljazeera, 27 June 2012.

[4] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.

While the plan has not yet brought about a ceasefire this does not provide a good reason not to continue to use the six point plan as the basis to create that ceasefire. Deadlines may pass but that cannot mean we simply abandon the intention to create that ceasefire. 

The plan is simply being used as political cover by Assad, as long as he is signed up to such an agreement and other countries believe there is a chance that he will implement it the Russians and Chinese will not allow further Security Council action. Both the Russians and Chinese are showing that they are willing to support Assad by vetoing anything hinting at sanctions.[1] Therefore the only thing the Annan plan does is provide more time for Assad to go on killing his own people so that he can remain in power as is shown by his unwillingness to implement any of the plans provisions.[2]

[1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.

[2] Editorial Board, ‘Syria’s cover for murder’, Washington Post, 31 March 2012.

Annan’s peace proposals do not provide cover for Assad; they call for Assad to stop fighting and single out the Syrian government as having to stop troop movements and pull back. Assad would have much more political cover without the proposal providing a benchmark by which to rate Assad’s cooperation.

As a follow up to the six point plan on the 1^st July in Geneva it was agreed that a transitional government would be set up which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent”.[1] Mutual consent however means both sides have a veto; Assad would have to agree and he is not going to agree to a government which he is not involved in. The opposition meanwhile argues “The country has been destroyed and they want us then to sit with the killer?”[2] With neither side willing to consider sitting down with the other it is difficult to see how Annan’s plan can ever get anywhere no matter how long it is kept on life support.

[1] Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué, 20 June 2012.

[2] Lee, Matthew, ‘Analysis: Plan to end Syrian crisis falls flat’, Associated Press, 2 July 2012.

Ultimately unless one side wins decisively then there will have to be a deal. Both sides will have to shift their positions. There have to be on-going negotiations to be able to facilitate this.

The plan has clearly failed; its primary goal was to end the violence but a total of at least 13,000 Syrians have been killed since the beginning of the uprising.[1] Around 100 people are killed each day and even Annan himself has conceded the ceasefire is ‘failing’.[2] Assad clearly believes the Annan plan has failed having told his cabinet "When one is in a state of war, all our policies and capabilities must be used to secure victory"[3] this is not the kind of language of someone looking to take part in a peaceful solution. Everything in the plan relies on some kind of ceasefire; that has not happened and without it the rest of the points cannot be implemented. The plan must therefore be abandoned as Susan Rice the US Ambassador to the United Nations stated when creating the monitoring mission "If there is not a sustained cessation of violence, full freedom of movement for U.N. personnel and rapid meaningful progress on all other aspects of the six-point plan, then we must all conclude that this mission has run its course."[4]

[1] Barari, Hassan, ‘A road map for political solution to Syrian crisis’, Al Arabiya News, 1 July 2012.

[2] Blomfield, Adrian, ‘Syria: Kofi Annan claims peace plan can be revived’, The Telegraph, 9 July 2012.

[3] ‘Assad says Syria ‘in a state of war’, Aljazeera, 27 June 2012.

[4] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.

While the plan has not yet brought about a ceasefire this does not provide a good reason not to continue to use the six point plan as the basis to create that ceasefire. Deadlines may pass but that cannot mean we simply abandon the intention to create that ceasefire. 

The plan is simply being used as political cover by Assad, as long as he is signed up to such an agreement and other countries believe there is a chance that he will implement it the Russians and Chinese will not allow further Security Council action. Both the Russians and Chinese are showing that they are willing to support Assad by vetoing anything hinting at sanctions.[1] Therefore the only thing the Annan plan does is provide more time for Assad to go on killing his own people so that he can remain in power as is shown by his unwillingness to implement any of the plans provisions.[2]

[1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.

[2] Editorial Board, ‘Syria’s cover for murder’, Washington Post, 31 March 2012.

Annan’s peace proposals do not provide cover for Assad; they call for Assad to stop fighting and single out the Syrian government as having to stop troop movements and pull back. Assad would have much more political cover without the proposal providing a benchmark by which to rate Assad’s cooperation.

As a follow up to the six point plan on the 1^st July in Geneva it was agreed that a transitional government would be set up which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent”.[1] Mutual consent however means both sides have a veto; Assad would have to agree and he is not going to agree to a government which he is not involved in. The opposition meanwhile argues “The country has been destroyed and they want us then to sit with the killer?”[2] With neither side willing to consider sitting down with the other it is difficult to see how Annan’s plan can ever get anywhere no matter how long it is kept on life support.

[1] Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué, 20 June 2012.

[2] Lee, Matthew, ‘Analysis: Plan to end Syrian crisis falls flat’, Associated Press, 2 July 2012.

Ultimately unless one side wins decisively then there will have to be a deal. Both sides will have to shift their positions. There have to be on-going negotiations to be able to facilitate this.

Both the options currently on the table are continuations of the six point plan. The western states such as the US, France and UK want to give the plan teeth by adding an enforcement mechanism while the Russians own plan simply involved extending the current monitoring mission.[1] There would be no point in starting from scratch on a new plan that would have to rebuild support from world governments and would likely end up at a similar position. Not only is there no plan B but any plan B would have to simply mean more of the same.[2] The Annan plan at least has a starting framework up and running and is talking to all parties.

[1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Does Washington have the stomach to kill of Kofi Annan’s peace plan?’, Foreign Policy.com, 18 July 2012.

[2] ‘U.N. chief: ‘No Plan B’ in Syria’, CNN, 24 May 2012.

There is little point in talks for the sake of talks if they are never going to get anywhere.  There are other things that could be done that could help reduce the violence such as creating safe zones in neighbouring countries territories, establishing buffer zones in Syria, and creating an arms quarantine to prevent Russian and Iranian weapons flowing into Syria to help the regime.[1]

[1] Tabler, Andrew J., ‘Cut Off Assad’s Lifelines’, The Washington Institute, 30 May 2012.

Kofi Annan believes that peace can only be found together arguing all members of the Security Council "Either unite to secure your common interests, or divide and surely fail in your own individual way. Without your unity… nobody can win and everyone will lose in some way." Moreover a failure of the peace plan would “turn a humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe."[1] Without any prospect of a peaceful solution it is likely that Assad would escalate to using chemical weapons. Nawaf Fares, the Syrian Ambassador to Iraq who has defected, has warned that they would be used if the regime feels cornered.[2] If this were to happen Israel might be compelled to attack to prevent Syrian Chemical weapons being used against it or falling into the hands of terrorists.[3] This in turn would spark off a wider regional war.

[1] Beaumont, Peter, ‘Failure of Syria peace plan ‘risks wider regional conflict’, guardian.co.uk, 30 June 2012.

[2] Gardner, Frank, ‘Syria: Assad regime ‘ready to use chemical weapons’, BBC News, 17 July 2012.

[3] Fisher, Gabe, ‘Pentagon reportedly seeking to avert Israel strike on Syrian chemical weapons sites’, The Times of Israel, 19 July 2012.

This maintains the fiction that the current plan is somehow reducing the level of conflict in Syria; it is not, and that is the whole problem. Already the Red Cross has declared the conflict to be a Civil war.[1] The conflict is expanding regardless of the peace plan.

[1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘Exclusive: Read Cross ruling raises questions of Syrian war crimes’, Reuters, 14 July 2012.

Western countries such as Britain and France want attention to shift from monitoring to enforcement. William Hague argues the bomb that killed the Syrian defence minister “confirms the urgent need for a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security Council on Syria… All the members of the UN Security Council have a responsibility to put their weight behind the enforcement of Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan's plan to end the violence.”[1] This enforcement would mean non-military sanctions if the regime does not withdraw troops and heavy weapons from populated areas within 10 days[2] – as called for in the second point of Annan’s plan.

[1] Hague, William, ‘Hague: ‘The situation in Syria is clearly deteriorating’, itvnews, 18 July 2012.

[2] AP, ‘U.K.’s Hague Urges Support for Peace Plan’, Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2012.

Russia has vowed to veto any such western resolution arguing that "To adopt the resolution would be...direct support for the revolutionary movement… To pressure just one side means drawing [Syria] into a civil war and interference in the internal affairs of the state."[1] Moreover even if such a resolution was to get through the UN Security Council it would have little impact. Sanctions have a poor track record in bringing regimes to the table when they believe they are threatened. Sanctions have not worked against Iran[2] or North Korea, and the sanctions imposed against Libya last year in a similar situation clearly failed as armed intervention was needed.[3]

[1] Bennetts, Marc, ‘Russia Says West’s UN Syria Resolution Supports Rebels’, RIA Novosti, 18 July 2012.

[2] Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, Eskandar, and Sahmi, Muhammad, ‘The Sanctions Aren’t Working’, Foreign Policy.com, 5 July 2012.

[3] Farge, Emma, ‘Special report: In Libyan oil shipment, sanctions prove dumb’, Reuters, 16 May 2011.