Obama Botched an Earlier Syria Peace Deal

One year and 80,000 lives ago, the U.N. envoy had carved a path for a government “transition.” But the White House and Hillary Clinton rejected it.

President Barack Obama speaks on the government shutdown and the budget and debt ceiling debates in Congress during a visit to M. Luis Construction, a construction company, in Rockville, Maryland, October 3, 2013, on the third day of the government shutdown.
National Journal
Michael Hirsh
See more stories about...
Michael Hirsh
Oct. 3, 2013, 4:10 p.m.

Des­pite Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry’s fren­et­ic ef­forts, pre­par­a­tions for the “Geneva II” peace con­fer­ence on Syr­ia’s civil war are already founder­ing. The rebel move­ment has be­come in­creas­ingly rad­ic­al­ized against Syr­i­an dic­tat­or Bashar al-As­sad and more frac­tured. A newly con­fid­ent As­sad, mean­while, has some­what re­le­git­im­ized him­self as a sig­nat­ory to a new chem­ic­al-weapons ban ne­go­ti­ated by the United States and Rus­sia un­der U.N. aus­pices, which his gov­ern­ment is tasked with im­ple­ment­ing over the next year. De­fy­ing glob­al op­pro­bri­um over his use of sar­in gas, As­sad has also po­si­tioned him­self in a series of high-pro­file TV in­ter­views as a prefer­able al­tern­at­ive to Is­lam­ist rebels who want to cre­ate a fun­da­ment­al­ist state.

All of which should prompt a reex­am­in­a­tion of the first Geneva con­fer­ence in the sum­mer of 2012, on which Kerry’s new push for peace is based. Ac­cord­ing to some of­fi­cials in­volved, per­haps the greatest tragedy of Syr­ia is that, some 80,000 lives ago, Pres­id­ent Obama might have had with­in his grasp a work­able plan to end the vi­ol­ence, one that is far less pos­sible now. But amid the polit­ics of the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion — when GOP nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney reg­u­larly ac­cused Obama of be­ing “soft” — the ad­min­is­tra­tion did little to make it work and simply took a hard line against As­sad, an­ger­ing the spe­cial U.N. Syr­ia en­voy, Kofi An­nan, and prompt­ing the former U.N. sec­ret­ary-gen­er­al to quit, ac­cord­ing to sev­er­al of­fi­cials in­volved.

Former mem­bers of An­nan’s ne­go­ti­at­ing team say that after then-Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton and Rus­si­an For­eign Min­is­ter Sergei Lav­rov on June 30, 2012, jointly signed a com­mu­nique draf­ted by An­nan, which called for a polit­ic­al “trans­ition” in Syr­ia, there was as much mo­mentum for a deal then as Kerry achieved a year later on chem­ic­al weapons. Af­ter­ward, An­nan flew from Geneva to Mo­scow and gained what he be­lieved to be Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin’s con­sent to be­gin to quietly push As­sad out. But sud­denly both the U.S. and Bri­tain is­sued pub­lic calls for As­sad’s ouster, and An­nan felt blind­sided. Im­me­di­ately af­ter­ward, against his ad­vice, then-U.N. Am­bas­sad­or Susan Rice offered up a “Chapter 7” res­ol­u­tion open­ing the door to force against As­sad, which An­nan felt was pre­ma­ture.

An­nan resigned a month later. At the time, the soft-spoken Ghanai­an dip­lo­mat was cagey about his reas­ons, ap­pear­ing to blame all sides. “I did not re­ceive all the sup­port that the cause de­served,” An­nan told re­port­ers in Geneva. He also cri­ti­cized what he called “fin­ger-point­ing and name-call­ing in the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil.” But former seni­or aides and U.N. of­fi­cials say in private that An­nan blamed the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in large part. “The U.S. couldn’t even stand by an agree­ment that the sec­ret­ary of State had signed in Geneva,” said one former close An­nan aide who would dis­cuss the talks only on con­di­tion of an­onym­ity. “He quit in frus­tra­tion. I think it was clear that the White House was very wor­ried about seem­ing to do a deal with the Rus­si­ans and be­ing soft on Putin dur­ing the cam­paign.” One of the biggest Re­pub­lic­an cri­ti­cisms of Obama at the time was that he had, in an em­bar­rass­ing “open mike” mo­ment, prom­ised Mo­scow more “flex­ib­il­ity” on mis­sile de­fense after the elec­tion.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials deny this ac­count, as do some who were in­volved at the State De­part­ment. Non­ethe­less, Fre­der­ic Hof, a U.S. am­bas­sad­or who was Clin­ton’s spe­cial ad­viser for trans­ition in Syr­ia at the time, agrees that the ne­go­ti­ations could have been bet­ter handled. The harsh de­mand that “As­sad must go” voiced by Clin­ton and Brit­ish For­eign Sec­ret­ary Wil­li­am Hag­ue was “gra­tu­it­ous,” says Hof, a seni­or fel­low at the At­lantic Coun­cil. “Per­haps a great­er ef­fort should have been made to give An­nan the time to do his due di­li­gence.” Still, Hof says he saw no evid­ence that the ad­min­is­tra­tion was pos­tur­ing for polit­ic­al reas­ons.

A cur­rent seni­or State De­part­ment of­fi­cial con­cedes that one of the prob­lems with mak­ing the An­nan com­mu­nique work may have been Clin­ton’s dis­taste for get­ting in­volved in ex­ten­ded dir­ect me­di­ation, in dra­mat­ic con­trast to her suc­cessor, who has opened up ne­go­ti­ations on sev­er­al fronts at once — with Syr­ia and the Rus­si­ans, with Ir­an, and between the Palestini­ans and Is­rael­is. “We’ve made more trips to the Mideast in the last nine months than she made in four years,” says this of­fi­cial.

While Clin­ton ex­celled at “soft” power — selling Amer­ica’s mes­sage abroad — one emer­ging cri­ti­cism of her four-year ten­ure at State was that she con­sist­ently avoided get­ting her hands dirty with dir­ect me­di­ation. Clin­ton agreed to leave key ne­go­ti­ations in crisis spots — in par­tic­u­lar the Mideast and south-cent­ral Asia — to spe­cial en­voys such as George Mitchell and Richard Hol­brooke, and she rarely stepped in as each of them failed. Vet­er­an re­port­er Dav­id Ro­hde, in an as­sess­ment as Clin­ton was leav­ing of­fice in Janu­ary, sug­ges­ted that Clin­ton wanted to avoid em­bar­rass­ment or fail­ure ahead of a 2016 pres­id­en­tial run; he quoted one State De­part­ment of­fi­cial as say­ing that he was “really happy to have someone in the job who does not re­tain polit­ic­al am­bi­tions.”

Still, Hof and crit­ics of the ad­min­is­tra­tion say a 2012 peace deal would have been a steep, up­hill climb at best. “I think there were a couple of prob­lems that raised their ugly head in the im­me­di­ate wake of this thing be­ing signed on June 30,” Hof says. “Num­ber one, it be­came clear to both An­nan and the Rus­si­ans that As­sad had no in­terest whatever in be­ing “˜transitioned.’ He was able to read the text of the Geneva agree­ment quite ac­cur­ately…. By the same token, the op­pos­i­tion was un­happy with Kofi’s hand­work be­cause there was no ex­pli­cit lan­guage to the ef­fect that As­sad will step down.”

But what happened next was that the Geneva com­mu­nique dis­ap­peared onto a dusty shelf; even Kerry when he took of­fice chided the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion for be­ing “late” in push­ing peace. And what Kerry faces now is a newly as­sert­ive As­sad and a vastly more frac­tured op­pos­i­tion riddled with ex­treme ele­ments that want no part of a U.S.- or West­ern-brokered peace. All of which makes that missed op­por­tun­ity even more pain­ful.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×