Syria has been on the forefront of most minds. Some look at it to solve it, some to see stability as a reason and some, or so it seems see Syria as a solution to a second game that has stages in play. So the question from this moment becomes whether Syria is now altered into a stack of dominoes? If we apply the domino principle to certain events in the Middle East, then the question becomes, how fair is that assessment?
First there is the fact that Brahimi, envoy to the UN has been very ‘outspoken’ in getting Iran involved. This is not me questioning Mr Brahimi as to why he wanted Iran to be part of it anyway. The question I have is valid, yet, I will admit that Mr Lakhdar Brahimi has an impressive list of achieved levels of expertise and as such we should regard him as the NHL coach bringing back the Stanley cup more than once. Like Jack Adams and Tommy Ivan. As a true blue Capitals fan, I still think the Red Wings suck (massively). Yet, these two coaches brought home Stanley three times each. They needed the players, but the coaches made it happen. We hate the team, we respect the coaches (it’s a screwed up world, I know). Such is life! Lakhdar Brahimi is in the same league. We do not like, or even care for the players at present, but the mitigation has made it happen in the past and as such we will watch how the play unfolds.
The mentioned play does have a lingering after taste. When Russia set into motion another Nuclear Power plant, when their support to Iran was given and they requested Iran to make certain moves, was this the upcoming play they had started to begin with?
Of course Russia has the resources, the power, the persuasion and the economic interests to make this all happen. It does however bring the question who or what Iran is actually representing? Syria, the Syrian people or just themselves?
Does this reflect on Lakhdar Brahimi?
I do not believe that this is the case. His work for the Elders, his work as a board member for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as well as his work for both the UN and the Arab League. He is trying to solve an issue and he will use any ethically accepted method to make the members to his party Waltz for peace. The question validly remains what the invitees have in mind. If we see the evidence through time and space that Russia cares about Russia, plain and simple, then their acts are not wrong, or not wanted, yet when the dance is not about the dance but about trademarking the fashion they wear, then who are the real dancers and what do they stand for?
Russia is not alone. We could ask somewhat similar questions of the USA. The UK is out of reach as they started the parliament step. The result is not one they wanted, but they stood by it. It was an admirable step, but not the greatest moment in David Cameron’s career.
Does it matter?
It does, but for different reasons you could imagine. We are all getting in a world that is getting more and more complicated. Like the inefficient use by some managers to hang onto ‘bullet point statements‘ in their memo’s, we genome in an unrealistic way the issues in play. At times a 2000 word document cannot be tweeted in a 144 character statement; the unrealistic approach that this always works will mean that people judge on inaccurate and incomplete information. In case of the Middle East it is not one, but hundreds of documents on that size. A tweet will not get us there and at times we need a person to make the choices to keep the story minimised, clear and correctly complete. Here Lakhdar Brahimi has his work cut out.
This is where the current situation just gets murky. No matter how clean the presiding speaker is, we know that there are dancers like Russia in play. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons still corrupts the idea, the notion and the act. What to do?
I do not know, but I do know that the talks will not just be about Syrian victims and Chemical weapons. It will have attached talks of Iranian nuclear power and a few more non-disclosed points of discussion.
What is an interesting development, which weirdly enough is not getting the level of exposure through the PRESS are the acts of King Abdullah II of Jordan and Pope Francis (the Bishop of Rome, in case you did not know) as they are trying to find solution through dialogue. Yes, I know that many others are in favour of this. Consider that Jordan is currently getting pounded on lack or resources as they deal with close to 1.5 million refugees. Still, His Royal Highness is not hiding behind others, or seeking an easy way out. No, he is hoping that dialogues will bring a solution. THAT is character of the highest level!
I would like that talks will solve is this issue, yet my sense of reality tells me it is no longer an option when two teams are so polarised. I am no standard to be based upon, but people like Pope Francis and King Abdullah II should be heralded for taking such a strong stance of principle, especially when we see what their stance is costing the Jordan government. Consider that we saw European nations back down lately for issues a lot less than that.
The world is a lot more complex for all players involved. We the people must accept this and we must accept the responsibility of knowing a lot more. If we do not, then we do not get to blame our representation and their choices for action, because we did not know. Ignorance is NOT a defence!
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 