A very good gaffe

John Kerry’s remark on the international control of Syrian chemical weapons might have been a blunder. But thanks to Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the blunder has become a tiny window of opportunity. And in a world that is tired of wars and abominates state-sponsored violence, as well as all types of violent conflict, the blunder is now a powerful argument against one-sided strikes.

History is so often built on blunders. And historical blunders have led to so many disasters. Maybe this time we will have a positive development coming out of a gaffe. 

EU, Syria, ICC and imagination

International law and moral principles are against collective punishment. One cannot punish the people for the crimes perpetrated by some of their leaders. Even in matters of war crimes and related offenses, the responsibility cannot be attributed to a group of leaders. It has to be linked to the individual responsibilities of each one of them, taking into account that there are different degrees of responsibility that call for different types of sentences. That’s why I think it is important to underline the following paragraph in Baroness Ashton’s statement of yesterday on the situation in Syria:

“The EU recalls the individual responsibility of the perpetrators of attacks of this type, who must be held accountable, and the role of the ICC in investigating and judging such acts.”

I wrote something similar in my weekly column of Visao, two or three days ago. But I went further. The UN Security Council has the duty to refer the chemical attacks to the International Criminal Court for investigation. It will be the Court that will decide on who should be in the list of suspects and then proceed against each one of them.

This is the way forward. 

It can, of course, be combined with a political process. And it should.

They are both missing. The ICC and the political process.

Some of us continue to prefer action to justice and imagination. Yes, imagination, because a political process in the case of Syria is above all an exercise extremely demanding in terms of creativity. 

Prying eyes

President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil said that her planned visit to the US can only go ahead if she receives a clear explanation from President Obama regarding the spying accusations. Indeed, the US seems to have been snooping on the Brazilian President –and others, such as the Mexican head of State. This is certainly a very unfriendly action and one understands Dilma’s position. It is the only acceptable response.

But in diplomacy realism tends to prevail. She will receive some type of assurances from Obama. Then, she will say the US has apologised and the visit will move on. That’s fine. By then, the point would have been clearly stated. The question will however remain: one cannot envisage an American administration that is not “watching” under cover what the two main rivals of the US in Latin America are cooking. Washington will say sorry, and then change the system and will continue the old practise. It is in their blood and in their own interest, as they see it.

It is up to Brazil and others to keep protesting and keep saying this is not acceptable.  And to try to protect itself from prying eyes.

Thinking aloud

At a time of great uncertainties, the key responsibility of a political leader is to minimize potential risks and bring tranquility to the minds of the citizens. To contribute to further instability, uncontrollable perils and to the loss of economic opportunities is bad leadership. Even when moral values and principles are on the line, the point is to respond to those challenges within the law and rules that can be accepted by the larger number of people. To go alone on politics is the best way to increase the risk and to find oneself on the wrong side of the solution. 

A very complex environment around President Obama's choice

As we reach the end of today, we notice that the President Obama’s military option is losing momentum in the US House of Representatives and also in the American and European public opinions. It is become a tough call for the President.

In addition, Pope Francis's letter to the G20 leaders cannot be easily dismissed. The Pope reminds all of us that there is no alternative to the crisis but through dialogue and that a military intervention will make things much more difficult.

All this is creating an environment that will be deeply against the strikes once they take place. President Obama – and François  Hollande as well – will have to deal with the consequences in and around Syria, plus with the citizens’ views in their respective countries. This will transform  any military action into a political challenge of great complexity. It will open many unknown avenues.

Lottery and Assad

Now we know the Damascus official explanation. It runs basically along the following lines:

•           Saudi Arabia and Western intelligence agencies have given chemical weapons to their friends the rebels;
•         The point was for the rebels to make use of them the day the UN inspectors were to start their visit and get the blame on the Assad government;
•          The fellows tried to shoot them from the suburbs they controlled but they were so inept - amateurs, the government said - that they could not send them across to the regime soldiers and to the areas under government control;
•           They kept trying, those amateur rebels, and the more they tried the more they failed and people around them, women and children, not only men, just kept dying in droves.

You believe this and you are ready to talk to Father Christmas about your forthcoming lottery win.

Poor minds, strong wills

I watched today’s hearing on Syria and have to say that I was not particularly impressed by the Senators that raised the questions. They obviously lacked a strategic view of the issue and a very limited understanding of the Middle East and the European capabilities –which are very small, when it comes to the ability to strike in a foreign land like Syria.

John Kerry, on the other side of the table, was much more strategic. He was able to contain his contempt for some of the questions. Only in one occasion he was about to go beyond a restrained approach.

General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also very professional. I wonder what he thought of some the Senators’ interventions. Not much, I guess. These military top guys have a very low opinion about the professional politicians.

In any case, it seems now clear that the Congress will approve President Obama’s resolution on Syria. For a “limited and narrow” campaign, it is said. But nobody knows what that means. And moreover, in this type of affairs everything starts small as the plan is to achieve the expected results within days. Experience has shown that it never happens that way. One knows when it starts, but no one knows how it will move on. 

Rajoy's strange neighborhood policy

Mariano Rajoy of Spain has added a new international tension to his conflict with the UK over Gibraltar. This time is with Portugal. He has instructed his Permanent Mission in New York to send a Note Verbale to the UN Secretariat stating that Spain considers the Selvagens Islands, an archipelago South of Madeira Island and on the way to Canary Islands, as a mere collection of rocks. And for that reason, Spain cannot accept any Portuguese claim over the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the Selvagens. 

This position is touching a sensitive chord in Portuguese history. There has been, in the past, for many centuries, a strong anti-Spanish patriotic feeling. This feeling has been seriously attenuated during the last two decades, but it is still there. It is never a good idea to kick the sleeping dog. 

G20 and Syria

Syria continues to occupy the front pages. It will also be the key matter on the table at the G20 meeting this week in St. Petersburg on 5 and 6 September. It is not on the agenda but it will dominate the discussions. President Obama's decision to strike Syria will be the ghost in the room. The fact that he is delaying any action until the following week will give some space for diplomatic consultations. But it will certainly not change the positions of the key players, especially Russia.

In the meantime, one would expect that the UN Secretary-General be prepared by then to share the preliminary conclusions of the inspections with the Security Council members. That would add some substance to the G20 exchanges.

Kerry on Syria

US State Secretary John Kerry’s statement on Syria was an excellent piece of work. Brilliant, well thought through and properly grounded. It is also, in many ways, a seminal moment in terms of foreign policy doctrine. It will be often quoted in the future.

But, for now, it deserves, above all, unqualified support.