The Hindu - OPCW winning Nobel Peace

In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given another leg up to the goal of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, the Peace Prize went to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Though it is tempting to see the 2013 Prize as an acknowledgement simply of the OPCW’s difficult and ongoing mandate to monitor the destruction of Syria’s chemical munitions, the organisation has done a commendable job since it came into being in 1997 as the custodian of the Chemical Weapons Convention. As many as 189 countries are party to the CWC’s ban on chemical munitions; under the treaty’s terms, they are obliged to declare and destroy any stockpiles they possess within a clear timeframe. Unlike the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives the United States, Russia, China, France, and Great Britain special status, the CWC is non-discriminatory. Unfortunately, as the Nobel Committee observes in its citation for the OPCW, “certain states have not observed the deadline, which was April 2012, for destroying their chemical weapons. This applies especially to the U.S. and Russia.” The U.S. has sought another decade to destroy its arsenal, while Russia is expected to complete the process only by 2018. The irony of thrashing out a deal to eliminate Syria’s CW stocks while lagging behind on their own commitments must not be lost on both countries. For its part, India has complied fully with the treaty, having eliminated its chemical stockpile four years ago.

Apart from living up to their disarmament commitments, the big powers must also ensure there is no interference with the OPCW’s functioning. The organisation relies both on technical and diplomatic expertise to fulfil its objectives. Yet, it has been impeded by partisan politics in the past: in the run-up to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration managed to oust OPCW Director-General José Maurício Bustani when it emerged the Brazilian diplomat would stand in its way. Mr. Bustani had sought to engage Saddam Hussein, with a view to ensuring Iraq’s accession to the CWC. By bottling the OPCW and using entities like the U.N. Special Commission for Iraq to further its own interests, the U.S. has done no service to the goal of eliminating WMDs. The role of the OPCW in Syria — given the limited time it has for its mission — will now be thrown into sharp relief. The stakes are high and the organisation must be allowed to do its job without coercion or meddling from outside. The quick and effective elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons would reinforce the world’s faith in multilateralism and vindicate the Nobel Committee’s choice for what is arguably its most prestigious prize.

The Hindu - bitter are the fruits of Arab spring

Over the weekend of August 16-18, 30,0000 Syrians crossed into Iraq over the Peshkhabour Bridge that spans River Tigris. They left the towns of Aleppo, Efrin, Hassake and Qamishly for the Kurdish region, where UNHCR field officers were stunned to see them. “The factors allowing this sudden movement are not fully clear to us,” said spokesperson Adrian Edwards. Thousands continue to make the transit, leaving a Syria paralysed by what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi calls “a civil war, a sectarian war, and a proxy war,” and entering Iraq, where a string of car bombs over the past month has brought the highest death toll since 2008. A major bomb blast in Beirut’s southern district of Dahieh (which means suburb) rattled Lebanon, where one million Syrians have sought refuge — now one in four of the people who live in this small Levantine country. Sounds of gunfire and bombs have become routine from the Mediterranean coast to the Iranian border, from the souqs of Egypt to the small coastal towns of Libya.

Since the Arab Spring of 2011 opened up in North Africa, all eyes are focused there once more as events seem to turn the clock backwards. In Tunisia, assassinations of left-wing leaders (Chokri Belaid and Mohammed Brahmi) convulsed the country into recriminations. Next-door Libya has been beset with major security challenges, and the new government of Ali Zeidan finds his Interior Ministers and his defence chiefs playing an uneasy game of musical chairs. The most dramatic events are reserved for Egypt, the self-defined centre of the Arab world. The massacres of August 14 portend for many a turn in Egypt toward the kind of slide into darkness that took place in Syria through the second half of 2011. Crackdowns against peaceful protests, there as well, morphed into a major collapse of state hegemony and the development of a serious and unending civil war.

Keeping the lines open

A year ago, the U.N. turned to its veteran Lakhdar Brahimi to start a political process in Syria. Its previous envoy, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, had failed, as had every detachment from the Arab League. Already catastrophic numbers of dead and of injured filled the rosters of the U.N. agencies tasked with relief. When Mr. Brahimi began he was sceptical, but nonetheless met with the various opposition groups as well as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. After a meeting with the latter in December 2012, Mr. Brahimi found himself the brunt of a hostile speech by Mr. Assad the next month. The Syrian state media, Mr. Brahimi said in an interview this month, was “not only critical of my declarations — which would be perfectly acceptable — but insulting, at times in the most vulgar terms.” Mr. Brahimi’s deputy, Mokhtar Lamani, maintains an office in Damascus and keeps an open line to the regime. The myriad and fractious opposition groups are also in touch with Mr. Brahimi, whose calls for an end to the supply of arms to both sides has led to some conflict with the rebel groups. There is no question that the war inside Syria remains asymmetrical, despite some defections from the armed forces to the rebellion, and that the destruction of the cities and the killing of civilians have proceeded apace. “The biggest concern,” Mr. Brahimi says mournfully, “is that one day Syrians and everyone else will wake up to find that Syria has been completely destroyed.”

Unwilling to relent

Does an exit remain for the carnage that has claimed over 100,000 lives? Neither side in the conflict is genuine about a ceasefire and a peace process. Mr. Brahimi called for a four-day ceasefire over the Id al-Adha holiday, which was accepted by all parties. But it did not hold. The Assad regime believes that it has the upper hand on the ground, with the rebels defeated in several strongholds along their logistical supply chain (notably when the regime took back Al Qusayr and Homs). The local geo-politics has also altered to Mr. Assad’s favour. The Gezi Park protests in Turkey as well as the revival of the Kurdish resistance have dampened the Erdogan government’s neo-Ottoman policy. The new emir of Qatar has had to drawdown the ambitions of the small emirate as their ally has fallen in Egypt and as their old rivalry with Saudi Arabia has given the advantage to the latter. The Syrian opposition, on the other hand, is undaunted as Saudi Arabia presses its advantage amongst them with its funds and as the North Atlantic states continue to give verbal support to their ambitions.

Sucked into the vortex

The powers that live far from the region (the U.S. and Russia) play their Cold War type antics in Syria, whose neighbours will have to suffer the consequences of its social haemorrhage. Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are being sucked into the vortex of the civil war, says Mr. Brahimi. But they are not the only ones who will suffer. “Remember 11 September 2001,” asks Mr. Brahimi chillingly. “That was the direct result of the neglect of the conflict in Afghanistan.” The U.S. and Russia have committed themselves to a process that is called Geneva II, whose meeting has been repeatedly postponed because, as Mr. Brahimi notes, “the conditions for starting that conference with a reasonable chance of success are not there yet.” The reason Mr. Brahimi did not create a peace plan over the course of the year is that he believes Mr. Annan’s plan is sufficient. It is not the lack of a peace plan that stops the process; it is the lack of trust between the parties to agree to any plan. A U.S.-Russia meeting in The Hague next week is unlikely to result in any forward motion.

If the far powers (U.S./Russia) cannot or will not broker such a peace, two other blocs exist for the task. One of them, the Syria Contact Group (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey), worked in 2012 with no support from the international community. In fact, the U.S. and the Russians consistently undermined it. With the turmoil in Egypt and Turkey, and with an ascendant Saudi Arabia, it is unlikely that the Contact Group will be revived. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of the Saudi Intelligence Directorate, travelled to Moscow to insert the Kingdom into the process but returned with nothing concrete. It is a sign that Riyadh wants to have a seat at the table with Moscow and Washington, rather than be part of a regional platform.

If the regional players have failed, convulsed by the implosion of the Arab Spring, and the far powers are uninterested in a foundation for peace, it is perhaps appropriate for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to send envoys to both the Assad regime and the opposition. India could play a crucial role in such an endeavour.

India's advantage

The Syrian government and the opposition see India as a sober party. India’s votes at the U.N. have depended on the merits of each vote rather than based on partisan support in one direction or another. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement at the 2012 NAM meeting in Tehran set out a course that appeals to all sides: “India supports popular aspirations for a democratic and pluralistic order. Nevertheless, such transformations cannot be prompted by external intervention, which exacerbate the suffering of ordinary citizens.” Verbal support is no longer enough. India needs to push for a NAM, a BRICS delegation or a Sino-Indian delegation to visit all sides and press for a ceasefire and a new peace process. It is the kind of initiative that Mr. Brahimi needs, anything to revive the dialogue and prevent Syria from slipping into a social coma.

Guardian - Israel 's air strikes in Syria

US officials say Israel targeted advanced anti-ship cruise missiles nearSyria's principal port city, Latakia, in an air attack this month, the New York Times reported.

The officials say the attack on 5 July near Latakia targeted a type of Russian-made missile called the Yakhont that Russia had sold to the Syrian government, the paper's website reported. Russia is a key political ally and arms supplier of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The officials provided no details on the strike, including the extent of the damage and how many missiles were used. The Times reported that the officials declined to be identified because they were discussing intelligence reports.

Israel maintains it is not involved in Syria's two-year-old civil war except to stop weapons transfers. The strike near Latakia was the fourth known air strike in Syria by Israel this year, the newspaper reported.

The attack came to light after Syrian rebels said they were not behind the explosions in Latakia on 5 July, according to the Times. Neither US nor Israeli officials have commented publicly on the report.

Reports surfaced earlier this year that Russia had delivered an advanced version of its Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile to Assad's regime even though Russia had said it was committed to peace talks. Those reports prompted the US to complain in May about an "ill-timed" step by Russia.

Such weapons would help to upgrade significantly Syria's capacity to target manned planes, drones and incoming missiles and would complicate efforts to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria if the US and other nations were to initiate one.