(THREAD) Do you know the difference between 12 & 6+6? In Maths, there is no difference. In diplomacy, the difference is call a "constructive ambiguity". That's what just helped finding a compromise to keep the Bab el-Hawa cross border (XB) access for another year in NW #Syria.
1/ So, I've already told you what a "constructive ambiguity" is in diplomacy right? This is an ambiguous point in the nego you don't clarify on purpose to leave the issue for later. I explained how it applied to the UN Constitutional committee on Syria.
2/ So what happened at the #UNSC ? The US & Euros wanted 3 border crossings renewed for 1 year. Russia wanted no border crossing at all. The US & Euros made an offer for 1 border crossing for 1 year. Russia proposed 1 border crossing for 6 months. That's where we were yesterday.
3/ Today, UNSC found a compromise & adopted unanimously Resolution 2585: Bab el-Hawa is renewed for 6 months (until Jan 2021) & another renewal of 6 months (until July 2021) will be subject to a UN report on the transparency of XB operations & increase of cross line convoys.
4/ Where is the ambiguity then ? It's unclear what will happen when the UN SG presents its report in 6 months & this ambiguity allows Russia to claim XB is only renewed for 6 months & the US that XB is renewed for 12 months. 6 = 12 ?
The phrasing of the resolution implies that issuing the UN report is enough to renew automatically Bab el-Hawa. And the US Ambassador confirmed XB is renewed for 12 months. However, it's vague enough for Moscow to save face & claim that it depends on the content of the report.
5/ This ambiguity allows both side to claim victory but will have to be clarified at some point & this will put a lot of pressure on the UN SG, supposed to present the interim report. This report will be mostly a diplomatic challenge because it is unlikely to bring any new info.
The UN provides detailed reports on XB and cross line every 2 months already. The new one will have to be more specific but we already know the regime is the primary problem. The challenge is that the UN doesn't like to attribute responsabilities, esp. to the Syrian regime.
6/ Beyond this trick, this compromise is good from a diplo perspective because XB aid in NW Syria is renewed for 1 year. It's disappointing from a humanitarian perspective because no XB access was reopened in NE Syria, where needs are also big & obstacles to cross line numerous.
7/ How did UNSC reached that outcome? Given Russia's veto right at UNSC, it was in a position of strength to get US & Euros closer to its position. Given its relation with Ankara, which fears a migration wave from NW Syria, Moscow had no interest in closing XB completely and
...the Biden Admin also made clear that XB assistance was important to the US and a compromise on this was a prerequisite for addressing other problems in the US-Russia relation. The Russian Rep praised the Putin-Biden deal in Geneva (in June) in his explanation of vote.
8/ So, the US-Russian dynamic has been key in the process. The prospect of a "functional relation" with Washington seems to have been a strong incentive for Moscow. But while indirectly accepting a 12 months renewal, Moscow has made gained on other topics, for instance :
The UNSC Resolution 2585 endorsed "shelter early recovery projects" as part of humanitarian operations while the position of the US was to exclude "early recovery projects" from humanitarian fundings.
In explaining their vote, several European members stressed they still refuse to fund reconstruction without a political transition. So, technical discussions are to be expected between donors and NGOs regarding what kind of projects can be funded.
9/ Beyond these diplomatic tricks, the consequence of this vote on the ground is a weak status quo where UN agencies can keep working in NW Syria to assist 4 millions Syrians, but without any stability or visibility regarding the humanitarian framework in #Syria.
10/ Conclusion: this is a diplomatic success that prevents a humanitarian disaster & may allow a more constructive dialog between Washington & Moscow but doesn't change the balance of power and the humanitarian situation in #Syria. (end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
[Thread] I have a great deal of respect for Amb. @fordrs58. And so I’m surprised by this article, with which I have profound disagreements. foreignaffairs.com/articles/turke…
I don’t question the main assertion : Obviously US approach to Syria has been far from successful for the past ten years. But I disagree on the article’s diagnosis of this failure. It’s not that the US had a wrong strategy, rather that it didn’t have one with the right scope:
1/ Questionable subtitle: the US state-building ambition never extended to SYR. As Ford himself points out, SYR has never been a US priority & there was no grand plans like in Afgha or Iraq. The Iraqi state-building failure actually refrained the US from engaging in it in SYR.
Pas mal de points très contestables dans cette tribune. Mais prenons les choses dans l’ordre: nouvelobs.com/idees/20201114…
1/ Tout d’abord, ce texte fait suite aux menaces de mort contre une journaliste. Je veux donc commencer par exprimer mon soutien à Judith Bernard face à des comportements inacceptables en démocratie. Aucune opinion ne justifie une menace de mort. Aucune.
2/ Sur le fond, je suis le premier à me réjouir de débats argumentés et respectueux sur ces sujets qui méritent toute notre attention, mais, dans cet esprit, je dois dire que cette tribune multiplie les myopies.
As a lot of discussions already started on what to expect from #Biden within the #transatlantic relationship, let me list few ideas I laid out for @WashInstitute about what it could specifically mean in the #MiddleEast :
(I’ll paste in this thread some excerpts of a longer paper on Europe-US cooperation in the #MiddleEast since the end of the Cold War, available here 👇)
1/ A key prerequisite to reset the transatlantic dialog on the #MiddleEast : the ball is in Europe’s court to make concrete proposals on a limited list of priorities. (cc @jbdacey)
In the context of recent terrorist attacks in France & after a week of outrage in Muslim countries over the Charlie Hebdo caricature, @EmmanuelMacron gave a long interview to @AJArabic today to counter misunderstandings and misinformation about his recent statements. Key points:
1/ Macron started by recalling that France had been attacked multiple times by extremists who were distorting the message of Islam and regretted that disinformation had been spread on social media about the situation.
2/ He recalled the roots of FR secularism based on the protection of freedom of speech & freedom of religion: a long struggle between the state and the Catholic Church and where caricatures on all religions (& politicians) are a tradition.
THREAD – One of the many questions related to the #US election next week is the future of American engagement in the #MiddleEast. All actors in the region are already hedging their bets. But what about #Europe’s interest in the Middle East & North Africa ?
Through 50+ interviews, I have looked back at the evolution of transatlantic cooperation in the MENA region since the end of the Cold War & tried in this @WashInstitute piece to assess the potential implications of the US election next week. washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysi…
Let’s start with a paradox: while for many in the MENA, Europe & the US represent the « West », there is no clear “Western” framework of cooperation about the Middle East.
I understand @ishaantharoor may not have chosen the title and that presenting this as a clash of two leaders’ ego is catchy. But this is missing major issues, at least four of them :
1/ How it started: there is a constant disregard in reports for the fact that FR-TUR tensions started and continue in Northeastern #Syria because Ankara’s milit interventions disturbed the fight c/ #ISIS. Why is it important ?
Because the US was the main player on the ground and the failure to find an understanding with TUR led to the escalation we saw in October 2019 when TUR intervened and the US withdrew without consulting its European allies.