Path to Peace in Syria

Bring peace to Syria will be as difficult as everyone wants it to be. From the very beginning the breakdown of peace was only helped to grow even more chaotic. Here we are today and once again the United Nations is going to take the blame for a peace operations failure.

Right of the top the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council fought each other instead of work together. The western countries (United Kingdom, France, Republic of the United States) are as much to blame for the breakdown as Russia and China. Each country has played politics with more of a domestic attention towards their own countries than they have towards Syria. That is the absolute reality. This entire situation could have been avoided if the will was there, yet it was not.

That lack of will was so clear from the outset that the current situation was as predictable as the sun shining. The immediate call for regime change was and still is the largest mistake made by many of the world leaders.  This mistake brought about many other mistakes. There is no good reason why only thirty Observers on the ground now. There is no good reason for supplying military equipment to opposition forces. There is no good reason for training forces outside of Syria and supporting their efforts to return to Syria.

What needs to be done now?

·         The ceasefire agreement still needs to be a point of focus. With that the Observer force needs to get on the ground as soon as possible in numbers of at least a thousand, more if possible.

·         Foreign journalists are good secondary observes but they can also be used for propagandist purposes. This is where people (like me) have to sift through all the information, find the sources, biases and reality. Truth can be manufactured and that needs to be deeply understood.

·         All border crossings and points of entry need to be locked down as tight as possible.

·         Arms embargo needs to be enforced and the complete disarming of all forces started immediately.

·         The world leaders need to support the legal structure of Syria and its constitution. The current government is the only legitimate leadership structure and that is the only avenue open for discussions.

·         The 26 February referendum results need to be a focal point of peace talks

·         A large peacekeeping force needs to be operational in conjunction with the Observer Force

These points are going to be almost impossible to implement, if it all. We know that the world leaders from outside Syria have only made things worse. Now we have to end that method and start within Syria.

As we look at the body count rising and the cities destroyed, we have to keep in mind that both sides of this must share equal responsibility. As internationals we must adhere to the current laws of Syria. Also we must focus on solutions and a future of peace. The current government of Syria has to be convinced that a peacekeeping force is not a breakdown of sovereignty. A peacekeeping force is there to strengthen the sovereignty of Syria.

Currently we are all embroiled in the chaos of violent conflict. Such a state clouds the mind and cements the cycle of hatred. As you read or watch the news take that frame of understanding and look past the blame and shouting that fills most media reports. We must tell our own governments to take such a view but first we must take that step. As you begin to see past through the cycle of hatred you can look to other wars like Palestine and Israel. Thus begins a new effort and path to peace.

Syrian path to peace

Who started the fighting? That question is one that is often put to the world when we seek to bring order to the violence. In reality when the violence starts it rarely matters who started the fight. The first order of business is to stop the fight. However, we are hearing that question all too often in the case of Syria.

The recent fighting has now crossed into Turkey. Again we do not know who fired across the border first. Anyone with a small amount of tactical knowledge will understand how easy it is to stage such an event. A small group of five people can lure a tank within range, overtake it while ensuring it is operational and then fire all rounds off. Honestly, at this point it hardly matters as we can be sure that neither side will adhere to a ceasefire agreement. This is leaving the world few options. The one option that needs to be thrown out is the arming of the opposition forces. Arming the opposition will only ensure the chaos continues, death toll rise and more instability within the region.  

If the world is so concerned to bring peace to Syria, send peacekeepers, observers, medical aid and food aid. Enforce an arms embargo, tighten the borders as much as possible and put equal pressure on every side to stop killing each other. These are the measures that must be taken. However, I do not hold out much hope for such measures being taken.

It has been reported a great many times that the opposition a fragile coalition. There is less support within Syria for the opposition than the current government. Furthermore, the opposition is composed of known international terrorists with very little desire for peace. We also know that if the current leadership within Syria falls there will be a major power vacuum. That vacuum will be filled many groups all fighting for power. That is a scenario worse than what is currently taking place in Syria.

If the current leadership falls, Syria will be a haven for weapons smuggling in that region. Iraq is already a prime route for such. Syria will only provide more avenues for the destabilization of the entire region. Looking forward that would lead to attacks on Jordan, Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Turkey. Of course that is pure speculation as it points to a “what if” scenario. Yet that reality must be front on mind when looking at the current push for the leadership in Syria to step down.

At the moment there is no credible leadership to take its place. Despite what the Friends of Syria say. The world has been told that options in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were better than the old leadership. In each case those regions are no better today than they were fifteen years ago, perhaps worse.

As brutal as it seems, the current leadership in Syria must remain if peace is the true goal. The world needs to focus on the 26 Feb referendum that called for political change. That is the foothold for peace. It is a legally binding process that the people of Syria have asked for, the current leadership has endorsed and the international community would be wise in pursuing.

There is still a major need for peacekeepers, observers, humanitarian aid and international journalists to have access within Syria. None of these should be seen as a breakdown in sovereignty. To the contrary, such measures should be seen as a boost to Syrian sovereignty. There is an international campaign being waged inside Syria to topple the government and the international community should help to bring that opposition.

Peace in Malawi

Within the past few days Malawi has successfully transitioned leadership of the president. The former President Bingu wa Mutharika died while in office (literally). The constitution provides for the Vice President to resume power, Joyce Banda. This transition went as perfectly as if such an event happened in Czech Republic. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/04/201247111815207836.html

Joyce Banda has become the first woman leader of a Sub-Saharan country. Further to that she is a strong advocate for human rights, which is a serious concern for any country. This is all very new and the hope for peace to remain is strong in her voice. That strength can be felt even in the news clip above. This success of peace is one to celebrate. However the pull of power is great and Joyce Banda has enemies.

 When you are embroiled in chaos the urge towards hatred and destruction is a strong pull. On an individual level you may be having a dispute with someone. You fight to ensure your stance over the others. For the most part the entire reason you fight is because your ego has taken a hit and you need to secure your confidence/authority over another. Rarely is the fight about anything that made the escalation to violence warranted. It is these moments of life that we need to be aware of, acknowledged and countered peacefully.

In Malawi there is a strong pull for peace to remain with the knowledge that chaos is near. That chaos needs to be kept in mind so that you know where the fight is waging from. At this point in Malawi, those that wish to take power can be succumbed through talks.

From all reports Joyce Banda is a person that can be trusted.  If you have read other postings of mine you will know that a person who is trusted to be peaceful can be a liability. This trust is seen as a weakness to others that are quick to use violence. I understand the use of violence and Joyce Banda may have to use violence to eliminate those that choose to destroy the peace within Malawi. This is the reality of life. It is clear that Joyce Banda does not want violence, however her enemies may. Now we must ask what are her options to ensure peace remains in Malawi?

For the coming years, Malawi is a case study of peace in Africa. We have the opportunity to observe a rare moment. We can observe how she works to build upon her trust, how she builds the peace to such a degree that no one would have a need to destroy it. For me this is a moment to learn about peace as Joyce Banda is walking into unknown territory.

Syrian referndum of 26 Feb needs to be the foundation for peace.

For a society to remain peaceful the people have to take responsibility to ensure that environment. With each person, the leaders have to be more diligent in their efforts to remain trustworthy and honest. When issues of difficulty arise the need for peaceful dialogue is at its utmost importance.

During times of difficulty ideology will clash. This is a fact of reality and the root of most violent conflicts. For a society to remain peaceful there needs to be the voice of reason. The voice needs to be someone that will stand up and point out the common elements of understanding, goals, ideology and the reality that each person cares about the future. That person needs to have the trust of the people though. In Syria there are few people that have that trust and even fewer people standing up to voice the commonalities of the conflicting parties.

Who do we have standing up to speak of peace in Syria? The Friends of Syria have acted in a manner which is more an enemy of Syria than a friend. The current leadership in Syria has a tenuous grip on any perceptions of being peaceful. As for a single person, there is only one person that has any form of trust or credibility and that is the United Nations envoy, Kofi Annan.

We need to ask why the results of the 26 Feb referendum have so quickly been forgotten about? Why have the Friends of Syria not pressed upon those results? Why have the Friends of Syria continually called for more weapons? Why have the Friends of Syria worked so hard to discredit the current leadership in Syria knowing that such a tactic will only prolong the violence. Why have the Friends of Syria worked so hard to discredit Russia and China, when those two countries have only called for peaceful discussion within the legal framework of Syrian and international law?

The Friends of Syria have equalled the current leadership within Syria in terms of prolonging the violence. If peace is the return quickly, the Friends of Syria must change their tactics to be more aligned with Russia and China. The call for a universal ceasefire, weapons embargo, highly enforced border security to the point of almost lock down with only food and medical aid to be allowed in and strong pressure to get all sides into discussions.

The phrase “all sides” deals with only the people within Syria. The only outsider taking part in the discussions should be the United Nations envoy Kofi Annan, no one else, not one more person from outside. This is a Syrian process and it is theirs to manage. The international community can assist by providing peacekeepers to ensure that law and order are maintained. Journalist and ngo’s can also enter so that the rebuild can start and is monitored.  

The discussions already have a foundation with the 26 Feb referendum. That process indicated the need for a new constitution as well as a new political system. The world needs to support that process. The world needs to look at the reality within the Syrian population two years ago. The country was on a path to peace. As always peace does not arrive quickly enough for some and so they resort to violence. That is the reality which is lost in all of this.

With friends like that who needs enemies?

Syria and Libya are on similar paths, although Libya is a few months further ahead. Both are flirting with death. With each bullet fired, chaos wins and peace dies. The frustration with those that continue to increase violence fuels the desire to let war reach its pinnacle as soon as possible. Of course these desires should be restrained.

 Living in a country that has a leader which is not to be trusted is very difficult. No amount of goodwill can be built, you always feel a gun pointed at you, discussion seems useless and the system corrupt. When life gets to such a state violence quickly becomes the only way a person can feel they have done something to express their disgust.

You see, that is what people need. People need to voice their displeasures. There has to be an outlet for the pressure of emotions. There has to be an option for a way out. People can not live in hopelessness. People will fight, kill and accept death themselves if there is no hope. Hope is needed so much that we have created religions so that people have something to hold on to when life is seen as pointless. To some degree this has backfired and now we have people fighting about which religion is the best one to believe in. Pure insanity.

A leader that lacks credibility yet holds the larger share of physical force is a leader that will use fear and violence to retain power. Such a leader knows they do not have the intelligence, compassion or right to stay in power. The only way to keep their power is to use fear and violence. These leaders do not have to be rulers of countries, they can be warlords, gang leaders, religious leaders or anyone. How many families are forced to live in terror because of such a person?

Within Syria we have many such people. No matter what they call themselves, whether it be the Syrian National Council, Friends of Syria or the Revolutionary Syrian Freedom Front. These groups show their true character in the continually call for increased weapon support. No amount of weapons will solve this because no weapon can work without a person to operate it.

As I mentioned above there is the point when a person can no longer live in restraint. That point is a reality, yet it is all too often used for the weak minded. We are seeing the weak minded come together in the Friends of Syria coalition. We are seeing the weak minded in Libya that are still fighting.

Peace takes great courage. We need more courage in Syria and Libya. We need the voices of peace not only for the people within these countries, also for the regional countries. Leaders that are peaceful and are trusted to be so, have opposition yet the opposition understands there is no need for violence. Again I must state the stupidity of those that counter with the fact that a peaceful person leaves themselves open to violence. That line of thought is a reality but we are trying to build a world where such violence is obsolete, are we not? With friends that have such a mentality, who needs enemies?

The people decide what style of government to have, not the international community

With each step we take in the pursuit of peace we are to learn. The past one hundred years we have been fixated on the attachment of peace, freedom and democracy. With each situation that I have either been involved or aware of, I have slowly come to realize that peace and freedom are not always teamed with democracy.

The vision of democracy being one person one vote, elected government, responsible representation, and people governing themselves are all valid points. However, we have learned from the RUSA through the years 2000 – 2008 that a democracy can also be tyrannical. We also see that only 35% of the population actually votes. We also know that few people in the RUSA feel they are the government.  This great beacon of hope is proving to be false and we have to rebuild the mindset as to what peace and freedom really are.

There is a saying which states “no government acts without the will of the people”. This is very true. Without the will of the people no government will last. Therefore no matter what style of government, the people have to agree.

There are terms of brutality that occur when governments abuse power such as the case with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, military rule in Burma. In both cases the will of the people had been crushed due to violence and fear. Such situations are realities we work to see an end of. It is through the will of the people that we seek an end to such realities.

The will of the people to govern themselves is not conditional to democracy, it is a basic human desire. As we look back into the history of indigenous governance here in Canada, there is evidence of democratic rule for thousands of years. These governance systems are now being recognized as the spark for all democratic models used today.

As we seek to resolve violent conflicts in the world we have to let go of the quick jump to democracy. Instead we need to focus on the peaceful order of day to day life.  The common push for democracy may actually stifle the ingenuity to develop a new system of governance. We must understand that the people will choose their own system of governance.

As the transition takes place there will be a need for order. Although we all wish for the benevolent dictator is such circumstances, none has come forth. We are left with the use of a similar system to the now defunct United Nations Trustee Council. This Council was to oversee the transitional governance of a state while it worked out the details of how governance was to take place.

The priority of any peaceful transition is first to end the violence and ensure order is maintained. After that is accomplished the people will engaged in negotiatied governace. This process will decide how the people want to govern themselves.

Strength to resolve matters peacefully

Having lived in many areas of chaos, I am positive that most people are peaceful. In turn, the larger part of society, is peaceful as well.  It is quite an odd situation while being a guest in a stranger’s home in a war zone.  The subject of the war is obviously discussed.  The reality soon hits you that most people have a strong understanding of peace.  However, you can hear the war rage on outside.  Then the question comes; how did this all get so ugly?

From that question alone the war will begin as the people recall the injustices set upon them.  This is called “stacking bodies”, the part where people begin to list all the injuries they have incurred.  Engaging in this activity is the method to prove how one side is the enemy.  Such tactics are rarely helpful in resolving a conflict.  Continually pointing out the injustices keeps you rooted in the mindset of revenge and being treated unfairly.  To get to the point of resolving any conflict you have to be able to do two things.

First you have to truly understand your part through accepting the others view point. You do not have to agree with their view point but there is no way you can change that view point.  Second you have to see past the committed injustices.  Again, you do not have to forget about the injustices but you do have to be able to accept that nothing can change those events.  Both of these items are simple yet they are difficult to enact.

Often we see these two items as a large part of being weak or giving in.  These views are a hindrance for most peace workers as it takes more strength, effort, intelligence and will power to engage in such a manner than it does to kill.  However there are times when killing is the only option, unless you want to die yourself.  World War Two, stopping Hitler stands as one example when killing was the only option.

Getting back to the methods needed for resolving conflict, the best tools we have is the ability to learn, educate and adapt.  We must have the capacity to understand that each and every one of us has a desire to improve upon themselves.  As we go about our lives we see others and we notice how others live.  In turn we see the parts of our own selves in these people that we wish we had.  We see in others the qualities that we know and want to improve upon.  If that person is in your daily life, the change that you wish to improve upon will become an irritant and you will develop a dislike for that person.  This is a popular theory of Carl Jung and it holds a great amount of truth.  This is on an individual level, not so sure it holds true on a societal level.  However the methods of dealing with conflict are transferable from individual to society and into international relations.

With the case of Syria, the government has given a great deal of attention to killing and very little to discussion.  We can be assured that the methods of killing will continue.  The Arab Council tried to force the discussion method by sending in Observers, that failed.  The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is again looking at intervention.  Economic Sanctions, strongly worded resolutions and a litany of press releases will most likely be the result if the UNSC takes action.  All the while the government will continue to crush its own people, at a slower pace perhaps. The killing will continue until morale improves in Syria.  It will continue at a pace slow enough for the appearance of peace and discussion.  Which brings in the world of optics, spin and bullshit.

All because some people do not have the strength to resolve matters peacefully.

Ancestral land dispute

If you read these postings you must be interested in peace and how it is managed?  When we manage things we must categorize how we are doing. As we look around the world we see countries with a great many more nations of people. Sometimes these nations of people span the existing borders of present countries.  Kurdistan people of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria are an example.  Here in Canada the Mohawk and Iroquois are nations of people that cross international borders.

In the realm of peace and conflict we can gauge how peaceful a society is in relation to how these nations of people and co-exist.  Being bound by three differing governing bodies; their own and each country they exist in is not an easy task.  For some nations such as the Kurdistan they struggle to achieve their own country.  In a perfect world such a reality would not be too difficult a task.  Take a poll of the people and adhere to that poll.  If unification is desired you begin the process of unification, easy.

Well not in the world we live in.  You see we have a deep attachment to area called territorial boundaries.  No country wants to give up any land what so ever.  Due to that there is often a great deal of killing to protect territory, even if the land being fought for is ancestral land and the people have a right to that land.  Palestine and Israel engage in one of the greatest injuries this world incurs on a daily basis involving the right to live on ancestral land.

Minority rights are also brought into this type of conflict.  Often the people that seek independence are minorities.  As we often live in the reality that might makes right, minorities are crushed.  Here in Canada there are hundreds of nations that hold ancestral rights.  We call this collective First Nations People.  What the world is seldom aware of is that many of these First Nations people live in conditions that are comparable to refugee camps.  Canada and the First Nations people must work together to solve these problems, so far both of us have failed to do so.

For some areas in the world the territory holds a great amount of wealth in the resources of minerals and petroleum.  For these resources countries will kill for.  We will kill for money.  Rights, morals, peace and the rule of law are not held in high esteem in some cases.  A person life is not worth a thing when economic development is in the equation.  The Occupy movement tried to send that message across the world, it was stopped.

The issues of ancestral land and minority rights are not easy areas for the public discussion to focus on.  Yet a peaceful society understands that unease and allows for the tensions to be addressed.  There needs to be a focus of working on such issues together, not as opponents.  All too often we see each other as opponents. 

When thinking about such issues, look at them with a unifying mind.  Use a mind that sees an improvement to what currently exists.  Think of the lives not killed, the hatred not spread, and the tension eased.  I say eased because it will never be gone.  Even a relationship with your best friend has and will go through fights.

Transitional chaos in Libya

The people of Libya have completed another phase of revolution.  The violent overthrow of the past government is complete.  Now the new government is in the dire situation of producing results demanded by the people.  The first demand is to bring law, security and predictable government more quickly.

In the pursuit of those demands the new government of Libya has asked the international community to release the financial sanctions put upon Libya.  What is surprising is that the financial sanctions are still enforce while the weapons sanctions have been lifted.  Think about that piece of idiocy for a moment.  A country that is well stocked with weapons to the point where stock piles are found daily is allowed to bring in more weapons.  Yet the money to run government, police, hospitals, schools, transit and a host of other infrastructure is still on hold.  Who makes the decision to lift the sanctions – UN Security Council.

It is even more absurd when you hear the list of priorities for the return to peace.  Number one is the locating and documenting existing weapons in Libya.  Second is the reintegration of the 75 000 fighters into society.  Third priority is to quell the rise in gang violence.   

There were enough more guns and ammunition to oust the last leader yet they need more to secure the peace?   In addition, you will not have any money to pay the police, military, doctors, teachers or government agencies to run these operations.  To be fair, there are funds made available.  It is just frustrating to see that weapon sanctions get lifted before financial sanctions. 

As the Libyan government deals with the transition, the public needs to be engaged as well.  The people need an outlet to express their experiences.  There needs to be a reintegration program on a mass scale that the entire society can go through.  In the past these have been called Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.  No matter what the name is, such programs are needed. 

The biggest test is going to be the elections, which are supposed to take place next June.  Already people are becoming agitated with the slow progress of transition.  This is to be expected as a violent revolution is a very highly intense atmosphere and peace is not.  People want change now and that is impossible.  What needs to be done is to engage with the people.  There needs to be mass discussions on the vision of Libya.

These discussions will allow the people to vent off the anger of what appears to be slow progress.  Having a person in place for the people to scream at, take that energy and produce positive feedback.  This is the realm of community development.  It may be the smallest of items that will bring the anger to a level that is acceptable.  Perhaps the local market has been destroyed or the schools or mosque or even a popular community area.  Whichever it is, a discussion with the community will provide answers. 

One thing they certainly do not need is more weapons.

Is a world government needed?

All day I have been thinking of a question asked of me early in the morning.  What do I think of having a world government?  I am not in favour of such a reality, to be honest. 

First of all, I like the system we have now.  The reason for that is because it is working quite well and we rarely use it to its core intent or utmost efficiency.   Cases in point.

Lately I have noticed an increase of reports dealing with the governance of conflict resources, along with small arms and light weapons.  These two issue are often seen linked together.  I know the United Nations Global Compact is being looked at right now and that deals with corporate social responsibility.  Add to that the frustrated feelings of people about the gap between rich and poor.  No one knows that gap more so than a child forced to work for pennies a day picking cocao, coffee, mining gold, making clothes etc.... 

At this very moment we have declarations concerning human rights and child rights.  Both of these declarations have been agreed to by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which makes all memebers bound to such declarations.  Now if the system was allowed to work we would have a great many more criminals in jail for torture, child slave labour, weapons trafficing and a host of other crimes.  However, we do not play to the full operational capacity of the current system.  Lord knows there were 3000 people killed in Syria since March 2011 alone, why is the world allowing that?

As sad as it is, somethings are not perfect and governance is far from it - completely due to the fact that we are far from perfect.  The current system has enough governance in place to deal with all that is going on, we just are not using it.  The reason is that there such an accountability cavity hinges on the singular issue of a power struggle which wages on.

On one side we are seeing the power struggle take place with the increase in revoultions spread around the world.  The Rose revolution, Orange Revolution, Jasmine Revolution, and the Arab spring.  These are the forces of the people trying to make current government work and it is slowly getting there.  The other power struggle is behind the curtain of all the news.  A struggle that has waged for years between the supremacy of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council.

We are witnessing the need for an expanded Security Council and the end of the permanent five holding veto power.  These two elements of change within the United Nations structure will alter the balance of power overnight.  Now my question has come to this - What that change would bring is quite unknown to me so should or maybe I do fear that change?  I must think on that.

In closing, a world government is not needed, I all ready have enough government.  What we need is more accountability.