The secretary of state hasn't outlawed war, as Frank Kellogg did in 1928, but his Mideast initiatives are a good imitation.
An American secretary of state was once
awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for outlawing war. In describing how 62
countries came to sign (and 85 U.S. senators to ratify) the 1928
Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Scottish historian
D.W. Brogan
observed: "The United States, which had abolished the evils of
drink by the Eighteenth Amendment, invited the world to abolish war by
taking the pledge. The world, not quite daring to believe or doubt,
obeyed."
John
Kerry
hasn't yet captured Frank B. Kellogg's crown. But he's trying.
Mr.
Kerry announced last week that he'd like to see Iran participate "from
the sidelines" in the talks, scheduled to begin in Geneva later this
month, to end the Syrian civil war. He's working overtime on a
"framework" agreement for Israeli-Palestinian peace. And then there's
the nuclear deal to finalize with Iran.
Geneva II,
as the Syrian talks are known in diplospeak, is based on a June
2012 international communiqué calling on the Syrian government and the
opposition to come together and form a "transitional" government. When
the communiqué was issued, then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton
insisted that its terms barred
Bashar Assad
from remaining in power, while
Sergei Lavrov,
her Russian counterpart, insisted the contrary.
Otherwise, solid agreement.
Eighteen
months, multiple chemical attacks, a spiraling regional crisis, tens of
thousands dead and two million refugees later, we come to Geneva II.
Frank Kellogg outlawed war in 1928. Kerry wants Mideast peace in 2014.
Associated Press/Zuma Press
In theory, the meeting will bring
together all the relevant parties to negotiate a political solution to
the war. In reality, Assad is barrel-bombing civilians, the opposition
is at war with itself, and the Syrian National Council, the main (and
moderate) opposition group, has insisted that it will not take part in a
sham process.
So what is Geneva II
supposed to achieve? It won't end the war in Syria. Iran has already
announced that Mr. Kerry's "from the sidelines" suggestion is
incompatible with its sovereign dignity. If members of the Syrian
opposition show up while others refuse, it will further fracture the
side the U.S. is supposed to be on. If the U.S. agrees to give Iran a
seat at the table (as Mr. Kerry will be tempted to do), the move will
further strengthen Assad's hand.
Otherwise, the prospects are excellent.
The
secretary of state has also been busy with Israeli-Palestinian peace.
On Sunday, on his 10th peacemaking trip in a year, he spent hours
discussing the subject with Saudi Arabia's 89-year-old
King Abdullah,
who offered his "enthusiastic support." When you've alienated the
Saudis by capitulating on Iran and Syria, there's at least a logic in
trying to appease them with a renewed push for Palestinian statehood.
But
here too it's hard to avoid the unreality of Mr. Kerry's undertakings.
The Palestinian Authority has had two masters since Hamas took control
of Gaza in 2007. Who, then, speaks for the Palestinians?
Mahmoud Abbas,
78, nominally the Palestinian president, no longer bothers with
elections. There hasn't been a prime minister of Palestine since June.
Israel demands that Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state. Mr.
Abbas explicitly rejects it as one. Mr. Kerry is also exploring the
possibility of interim agreements. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb
Erekat insisted on Saturday that "there's no place to talk about interim
agreements."
And there was this: The
Israeli cabinet was presented Sunday with a long report on Palestinian
incitement since the resumption of peace negotiations. "Official
Palestinian media outlets relay that Israel has no right to exist, and
that the Jewish people have no claim to the Holy Land," reported the
Israeli newspaper Haaretz. "In addition, other messages prevalent in
Palestinian media include that Israel's disappearance is inevitable and
expected to happen soon, as Jews are sub-human creatures that must be
dealt with accordingly."
Otherwise, the karma is excellent.
And
then there are the nuclear talks with Iran. In case you missed the fine
print, the interim deal that supposedly brought Iran's enrichment to a
halt has yet to be implemented. On Monday, Reuters reported that Iran
expected to start honoring the deal by the end of the month. Maybe. From
the beginning of the Iranian nuclear drama in 2002, Tehran's M.O. has
been to stall for all the time it can get. Expect the six-month deadline
that Mr. Kerry promised in November to drag into a year.
Meanwhile,
the head of Iran's nuclear program recently said Iran had "two types of
second-generation centrifuges," capable of enriching uranium at much
faster rates, but that it is keeping them offline—for now. Think of them
as
Chekhov's
gun.
Otherwise, the diplomacy is proceeding as planned.
For
all this, Mr. Kerry could succeed in his efforts, just as
Frank Kellogg
did: When the diplomacy of great powers becomes unstuck from
reality, sometimes it's easier for the smaller powers to go along with
the fiction now and take advantage of the facts later. But the world
won't live in illusions forever.
Too bad the same probably can't be said
for John Kerry.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.