Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Do Forced Negotiations Simply Put the World at Greater Risk

Yet another world problem is about to be subjected to international negotiations. The chances for a successful conclusion are not good. ~~~~~ UKRAINE. The Ukrainian government has agreed to launch discussions about giving more powers to its regions under a peace plan drawn up by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a trans-Atlantic security and rights organization that includes Russia and the United States.But Ukraine remains unconvinced of the value of engaging with the pro-Russian insurgents who have declared independence in two eastern regions. The meetings will be a series of round tables that will include national lawmakers, government figures and regional officials in line with proposals drafted by the OSCE. Russia has strongly backed the Swiss-drafted road map, but Ukraine has remained cool to the plan and US officials view its prospects for success skeptically. Ukraine and the West have accused Moscow of causing the unrest in eastern Ukraine. Russia denies the Ukrainian charge that Russian soldiers are operating in eastern Ukraine. The OSCE has asked all sides to refrain from violence and urges amnesty for those involved in the unrest, as well as talks on decentralization and the status of the Russian language. But there has been no mention of inviting rebels because the government has staunchly refused to talk to "separatists." Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Yevhen Perebiynis expressed concern that the OSCE deal does not specifically oblige Russia to do anything, and says that Moscow must be urged to stop sponsoring terrorists in order to de-escalate the conflict. Some analysts see signs that Russia has recently taken a more conciliatory stance, reflecting an apparent desire to ease what has become the worst crisis in relations with the West since the Cold War. ~~~~~ IRAN. The Iran-US-UN nuclear talks that got underway in 2013 in Geneva led to an interim ageeement in 2013 under which Iran would stop enriching nuclear materials to the threshhold at which they become useable as nuclear warhead components, in return for which an estimated $20-25 billion in direct and indirect economic sanctions against Iran were lifted. But, US officials have said the Obama administration is concerned about an emerging threat to the talks designed to seal a nuclear deal with Iran. The Russian business daily Kommersant has reported that Russia plans to buy 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day, shattering an export limit defined by the interim nuclear agreement that world powers and Iran reached last November. The oil-for-goods exchange is still far from finalized, the newspaper said, but its potential challenges Western efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement. In an appearance before Congress last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington could impose new economic sanctions if Iran and Russia move forward with the reported contract. The Iran nuclear negotiators continue to meet in Vienna but so far the only verifiable result is the lifting of sanctions against Iran. ~~~~~ NORTH KOREA. The North Korea Six-Party talks were a result of North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty in 2003. Five rounds of talks from 2003 to 2007 produced little progress until the third phase of the fifth round of talks, when North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear facilities in exchange for fuel aid and steps towards the normalization of relations with the United States and South Korea. Then, North Korea made a failed attempt to launch a "satellite" in 2009 and responded angrily to the United Nations Security Council's Presidential Statement that condemned the failed satellite launch. North Korea declared that it would pull out of thecSix Party Talks and that it would resume its nuclear enrichment program in order to boost its nuclear deterrent. North Korea also expelled all nuclear scientist monitors. Since 2009, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons underground and launched "satellites" that experts say are really intercontinental ballistic missile tests. ~~~~~ SYRIA. The attempt to hold ceasefire talks sponsored by the UN in 2013 were so difficult and the off-site comments so venemous that they failed even before an interim set of negotiating principles could be agreed. Only an evacuation of civilians from Homs was agreed, and that led indirectly to the devastating bombing of the city by al-Assad forces that caused the Syria Free Army to pull out and abandon their northern stronghold. No success here. ~~~~~ But the only negotiated success comes from Syria. Last week, the US State Department top arms control official, Rose Gottemoeller, said Syria, which agreed to destroy its chemical weapons stockpikes in negotiations with the West and the UN, has moved about 92% of its chemical weapons stocks to port for shipment out of the country. In a breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, the Under-secretary of State for arms control said the rest of the weapons are at a single site near Damascus. The head of the United Nations mission charged with destroying Syria's chemical weapons had said earlier that the last 16 containers of chemical agents are in a contested area that is currently inaccessible due to fighting. The US has a ship on standby to undertake the destruction of Syria's chemical stockpiles at sea. The MV Cape Ray has on board two huge machines, called field deployable hydrolysis systems which will mix the chemicals with heated water and other chemicals to break them down. ~~~~~ Dear readers, while internationally brokered negotiations can succeed, they require two things. First, the will of the factions to sit and talk until a mutually acceptable solution is created. Second, extremely skillful international negotiators to guide the process. In the latest case, Ukraine's factions seem unable to contain their hatred for each other. And the presence of Russia to bolster the resolve of the eastern region's insurgents makes them much less amenable to compromise. We should hope for the best but accept the idea that these talks, like the Iranian, Syrian and North Korean ones, will simply allow the bad faith players to continue along their destructive paths, putting the world in more and more danger.

5 comments:

  1. De Oppressor LiberMay 14, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    I have little to No faith in International Peace Agreements. To start with the term International really is a giveaway for the type of agreement that will be focused on for the outcome. If the U.N. is the body that is in control of the talks, then there is no doubt that agreed upon settlement (years later) will favor the “leftist governments.”

    What good is any settlement if BOTH sides do not feel they have garnished some advancement? And Peace Talks really mean a “cease fire” and some time to regroup.

    How can anyone have trust in the negotiations of “representatives” who commit (or tolerate) the killing of fellow citizens, the kidnapping of children, the rape of women, the burning of churches, stealing of national treasury, gas warfare, or the slaughter of complete villages. Any authoritarian leadership that would condone or turn away from ending such action has no trust or honor. So why should we expect trust and honor in their negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Concerened CitizenMay 14, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    "FORCED" anything is the absolutely worse way to achieve a long last solution. You force a child to eat their Lima Beans, they will forever hate Lima Beans and therefore deprive their children from having the opportunity to try them.

    You force the 39th Parallel cease fire down the South Koreans throat in 1954 and you have still today one of the most unstable situations in the world.

    I can not think of a forced political/military settlement that has lasted - but right now I am a bit brain dead.

    But my point is who is any third party that can FORCE a settlement onto a faction of country?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can you have "negotiations" when one side doesn't want to give at all?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Israeli General once said ..."if you want to make peace, talk to your enemy."

    What he meant was you sit down and talk directly to your enemy/adversary.

    Maybe he had a point that if one didn't have a dog in a particular fight, he had no reason to be making a binding agreement for those that do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A forced negotiation and/or settlement is without doubt less enforceable, has a shorter life span, and is less fair to ALL parties that negotiations and/or settlements that are arrived at via mutual needs and desires.

    All countries sign agreements and enter into negotiated settlements for political sense rather than common sense.

    ReplyDelete