Syria: looking ahead

Regarding the Syrian complex crisis, it´s obvious that Assad and Putin believe in the military solution. And they are now close to achieve the military control of a good deal of the territory.

That option might result for a while, but it cannot resolve the deep divisions existing in the country. It does not address the overwhelming call for inclusiveness and democracy coming from so many segments of the population. It only suspends and postpones the crisis.

I am not sure Bashar al-Assad realises he must open up and engage in political dialogue, after winning on the military front. This should be the key message the EU leaders should put across to him. For that, they have no alternative but to re-engage the contacts with the strongman in Damascus. The channels of communication between the EU and Syria ought to be re-established.

That´s my advice as the EU prepares to chair another conference on Syria.

Such conference must not be just about humanitarian assistance coupled with a mere statement reiterating past options. Options that time has shown to be as good as dead ends.

Moreover, it is not a great idea to link in the same conference two different matters: humanitarian needs should be discussed in a different forum. Not good to mix them with politics.

Friendly journalism

It can take months for a well-known, credible journalist to get a visa to enter Syria. Most of the times, the answer is no, no visa. Therefore, be on guard if one news person not only manages to get in but is also given a free hand to roam around as he pleases. Including to walk without a chaperon the streets of Douma, a township that remains out of reach for the UN chemical inspectors.

What do you expect from such a journalist? He is certainly a friend of the Assad circle of power. He will write stories that will go along with the regime´s narrative.

That will be highly appreciated by Assad and his supporters. And even more, if the said journalist comes from the UK or another major Western nation.

We should always keep in mind that the war is also about the way the stories are told and by whom. Propaganda is key in any war effort.  

Democracy based on strong institutions

Why are the EU nations more peaceful and easier to live in than many others? The answer is clear. They are built on democratic values and practices. The competing interests between different segments of society and the differences of opinion are dealt with by well established institutions, such as the parliaments, the justice system, and the trade unions and the business associations. There is also a vibrant mixture of civil society organisations, representing various concerns and strong enough to be free from the grip of the State.

In line with this, it´s obvious that the strengthening of our democracies requires that the role of these institutions be reinforced, and their independence further consolidated.

Institutional democracy is our model. It is not perfect and calls for constant vigilance and protection. But, in general terms, we can say it works, it keeps our conflicts within accepted boundaries.

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.