Syrian kids after operation euphrates shield in aleppo

Comments 12

阿勒颇之后

Dec 30, 2016 Christopher R. Hill

丹佛—阿拉破战事的结束不会结束叙利亚战争，尽管已经达成全国停火协议。阿勒颇市民的苦难也得不到缓解——其中许多人已经流离失所。阿勒颇围城赢得了什么呢？赢得了叙利亚的历史地位——用美国前国务卿沃伦·克里斯托弗（Warren Christopher）的话说，叙利亚是又一个“来自地狱的问题”。和其他地狱般的近期地区冲突，如波斯尼亚（克里斯托弗的话就是针对波斯尼亚说的）和卢旺达一样，未来历史学家眼中的叙利亚冲突的一个关键特征是外交方面的重大失败导致冲突全面升级。

好的外交必须从敏锐的利益分析开始，分析对象既包括问题所在国家，也包括相关外部力量。必须仔细评估追求各种利益如何影响地区和国际秩序。必须找出办法增强地区或世界力量帮助解决问题的能力。

在整个过程中，必须通过不断得到加强的形成普遍共识的价值观——这既是让众多行动方和衷共济的关键，也是解决问题和挑战的关键——提供道德指南和共同行动基础。至关重要的是确保价值观不会变成某个行动方针对另一个行动方、加剧冲突、破坏解决方案的武器。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

What Trump Gets Wrong About EU Defense

Jul 19, 2018 Javier Solana
Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

Jul 18, 2018 Nouriel Roubini
How to Protect Workers Without Trade Tariffs

Jul 17, 2018 Robert J. Shiller
Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Jul 18, 2018 Jason Furman
China’s Currency Catch-22

Jul 19, 2018 Paola Subacchi

Christopher R. Hill

Writing for PS since 2010
92 Commentaries

Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009. He is Chief Advisor to the Chancellor for Global Engagement and Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of Denver, and the author of Outpost.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 in all 13 Comments on this article

jose oscategui Jan 6, 2017

It seems that Mr Hil does not follow his own advise. He says: "
Good diplomacy begins with a keen analysis of interests, both of the country in question and of relevant external powers." But that must be an advise for others to follow because he doesn't mention which were the interests of the US, principally, and seems to suggest that they were purely philanthropic: to oust a"brutal dictator". Then "The temptation to seek regime change – a goal embraced by the United States and some European countries – was understandable".
Mr Hill forgot that not only interest should be identified but also capabilities. The unified Europe (behind the US) of the 1990's did not exist any more in 2015-16. It was not a lack of willing cooperation but of incapability of cooperation: none of the parters from the 1990's was willing to put a similar effort in 2015-16 because they can not cope with their own problems.
Surprisingly he seems amazed that the US was not included in the Syria talks to be held in Kazakhastan. However, when it all started it was the US who did not want to have any Russian presence in the whole Middle East, am I wrong?
John Doyle Jan 4, 2017

"a display of spectacularly incompetent diplomacy" says it all, really.
The USA has almost never done things differently. It's always incompetent , ideologically ill informed and destructive, whatever emanates from Washington. An appalling track record.
John Jones Jan 3, 2017

This business of supplying weapons to all and sundry shines a searchlight on the current fashion for proxy warring. Nations outside Syria don't want their boots on Syrian ground but they are all too willing to arms whoever they happen to back on the ground - with 'hellish' consequences all round. All arms need to be taken out of the picture ands all disputes should be resolved by a global authority - which of course we don't have Are we not idiots?
Karim Pakravan Jan 3, 2017

it is not sufficient to blame the US for incoherent policies in Syria. As usual, Europe was AWOL, even though this was happening in their backyard.--apparently they preferred to rely on the US, as usual. Moreover, I don't think the West believed that Russia would follow a scorched earth policy and engage in (and abet) a bombing campaign that can be only characterized as a war crime.
Vidvuds Beldavs Jan 3, 2017

It is unclear what Ambassador Hill is seeking to achieve, but his criticisms seem to ignore some of the context and facts relating to the Syria problem.
The process that was underway under Secretary of State Kerry was to engage the opposition groups along with their backers and get them to the negotiating table with Russia having the responsibility for getting the Assad regime to the negotiating table. Perhaps 3 months into 2016 Assad made the statement that he was going to reconquer every centimeter of Syria. He was convinced he could achieve military victory. At the time I recall seeing that Vitaly Churkin responded to this assertion with one word - "Nonsense." But despite Russian interests in advancing political resolution Assad was resolute in military victory. Now, it appears that Russia chose to pursue the choice of Assad to seek military victory. Rejecting the US attempt at building foundations for eventual political settlement Putin now owns the Syria problem. President Obama was prescient in his warning that Putin was stepping into a quagmire. The latest ceasefire has collapsed. The future outlook is poor.
Russia cannot finance the reconstruction of Syria. Perhaps the ultimate victory will be that of the donors who pay for reconstruction. The donors can set terms including political reforms and the prosecution of those that have committed crimes against humanity. What Trump could do together with the EU is to put a reconstruction plan on the table tied to Security Council resolutions backed by Russia that require all parties to comply in effect placing Syria under UN control. To get out of the quagmire Putin may accept such an arrangment. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created with the reconstruction effort and refugees would flow back to the country. If Assad were to be elected by a vote of the people so be it. However, all Syrians, whether in refugee camps or elsewhere need to be given voice regarding their future.
Ian Brookes Jan 2, 2017

Just remember - the actions of the US and its allies in interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation are illegal under the UN Charter.
B Wilds Jan 1, 2017

As the holiday season moves towards an end it should be mentioned we often forget how lucky we are not to have been born into an area where life has turned ugly. War has unleashed death and destruction on Aleppo.

A great degree of responsibility should be fostered upon those encouraging and supplying the weapons or war to those pondering a revolution. War tends to be a Pandora's box rather than the easy answer we often seek. The article below delves into the sad fate Aleppo has suffered.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/12/aleppo-stands-as-glaring-example-of.html
j. von Hettlingen Jan 1, 2017

Christopher R. Hill is as critical of America's policy in the Middle East as he is of Russia's support of the Assad regime. While the US has little to say about the future of Syria, Russia will hardly broker peace in the region. When Putin intervened in September 2015 he saw himself as a firefighter. Now he is in fact an arsonist, setting the region on fire. By helping Assad regain some lost territories and consolidate power, he has made himself a hate figure among the Sunnis in the region. So far Arab leaders have been quiet, but they won't abandon the Syrian rebels fighting Assad. It looks as though they are taking a long breath and wait till Russia scale down its operations in Syria. Time is on their side. Assad won't survive without Iran and Russia.
While Hill blamed Obama for "the spectacular diplomatic failures that enabled it (the war) to escalate," he praised the late secretary of state, Warren Christopher for his "good diplomacy" in ending the Bosnian war and bringing peace to the Balkans in the 1990s. Hill sees Aleppo as Christopher saw Bosnia - a “problem from hell.” While more than 100,000 people are thought to have been killed in the Bosnian war of 1992 to 1995, the six years of fighting in Syria have killed more than 400,000 people, displaced millions and devastated entire cities.
There is little hope that the multi-layered proxy war in Syria would end the way the Bosnian War did. Syria is strategically of significance and the spillover effects of its war don't leave international and regional powers "indifferent." It is "perched on the Mediterranean; shares borders with Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and Iraq" that are tinderboxes in the region. Syria, like Iraq, "has its own restive Kurdish minority."
As there isn't "a clear path to peace in Syria," many see the cynically brutal Assad as another alternative to Islamists. Indeed, with Iran and Russia as his staunch allies, he gets away with his heinous war crimes. During a fraught transition of power in Washington, Putin has effectively outmaneuvered the US into a position as the sole international player in Syria. Hill criticises Obama for "incompetent diplomacy" and doing little. But Obama was determined not start another war in the Middle East that neither the American people nor Congress wanted. Time will prove many experts and international leaders wrong that this decision has not cost America prestige and influence.
Hill says, "America’s real mistake was failing to engage with all sides, including Assad and the Sunni opposition, which it deemed sectarian." He compared it to the US effort during the Bosnian War - Americans "talked to rump Yugoslavia’s ruler, Slobodan Milošević." The first case of genocide on European soil - the Srebrenica massacre - since World War II prompted the establishment of war crimes tribunals, and the conviction of perpetrators. The 1995 Dayton peace accords were signed in Paris. Russia was absent on the international stage, because the nascent Federation was preoccupied with domestic problems after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nato soon lost its relevance after the dissolution of its communist counterpart - the Warsaw Pact.
It's not fair to describe Obama's stance as a "narrow-minded approach." He demanded Assad to step down and expected the development in Syria would follw the same pattern like in Egypt and Tunisia. The trouble is the vagaries of a war. With so many players involved, the situation is always fluid. Due to its limited involvement, "the US effectively handed the diplomatic reins over to Russia," but there is no guarantee that Russia can control the development in Syria, let alone ending the war there and withdrawing its military.
Russia's "version of diplomacy /also/ lacks inclusiveness." It has mended fences with Turkey after a fraught relationship, to bring the Assad regime and its opposition "together in Kazakhstan for a new series of peace talks, facilitated by the ceasefire, of which Russia and Turkey are guarantors."
This time Iran will be there. "But where are the Sunni Arab states?" In the past Iran was never invited to the US-led meetings in Geneva at the request of the Sunnis. "More important, where is the US?"
Putin wants to be a master tactician for reasserting Russian influence in Syria and rekindling ties with Trump. He might let the US play a role later. Whatever his ambition, there is the question of whether Putin is willing and able to take responsibility for Syria’s future, including rebuilding the cities that Russia helped destroy. Americans will then appreciate Obama's decison for staying out of this war.
Peter Ellis Dec 31, 2016

Shouldn't the mood in the US and Europe not come into the equation when accusing the US of handling Syria poorly? In the UK there was definitely a mood of not wishing to be involved in the ME, and I suspect that the mood in the US was similar. That said, I was disappointed by the way the West allowed such blatant violations of human rights to take place. Does the US come out of this worse than Russia? No. That Russia acted as it did in Chechnya by flattening urban areas with heavy bombing makes it a pariah state.
Francesco D'Allessandro Dec 31, 2016

Mr. Hill your analysis on Aleppo is pragmatic and with an eye toward the historical. It raises possible nightmarish scenarios that could develop unless diplomatic overtures with the intent of creating sharp fangs take place. As you point out, incompetency and non-enforced redlines are a recipe for universal mayhem. One has only to look at all the participants sitting in the high stake geopolitical table and it makes one shudder. Iran, Turkey, the Russian Federation, Baathist war veterans, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, legions of fanatic Sunni and Shia jihadists inspired by the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, Qutb and Usama bin-Laden, tribal clans, Hezbollah among other radical groups and of course the West. Even China via the Persians has interests in the region. No wonder the USA and its reduced circle of allies have been checkmated time and time again at the chessboard. Whether playing against Mr. Putin, Bashar al-Assad or the Qom Ayatollahs, the current American and EU directorates have failed miserably in their attempts to forge stability in an area beset by a continuous cycle of unrestrained violence that has spilled toward all shores. As you rightfully express, ethical indignation if not escorted by force fed statesmanship will not stem the tide.

Our Western civilization to survive needs a contemporary Von Metternich. A Henry Kissinger clone. Realpolitik is the crucial tool to postpone the inevitable clash that lies ahead, while strengthening our defensive/offensive capabilities. Anything short of molding alliances among those whose interests match ours is cutting our own wrists. To choose the latter path It is then best to capitulate and repudiate further bloodshed for the Islamic fundamentalist tsunamis are encroaching their way toward all Westphalia ports and will do so unimpeded. It is factual that each new attack emboldens the next…and we all know that political correctness is not the answer.

The question is how do we go forward? The adage that every crisis mirrors an opportunity enriches the narrative of Aleppo as we seek a fresher approach in the political-military realm. The undertakings for the new batch of consular CEO’s are clearly etched. 2017 could be the pivotal year where the West takes a bolder initiative with the aims of defeating the present dangers. To persist in the status quo amounts to the same self-defeating policies that have been in effect for some time now. Either we change our deficient ways or we kneel.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Jan 3, 2017
  
  What chessboard do you refer to regarding Syria? The U.S. has not been involved in the civil war in Syria. It is not playing on that chessboard.
  When the U.S. led anti-ISIS coalition has bombed ISIS positions in Syria the rules of engagement have been to avoid any damage to Syrian government positions. With one exception in thousands of sorties this was successful. What the U.S. has done is attempt to lay the groundwork for political settlement. Clearly Assad had zero interest in political resolution and he convinced his partner Russia to seek military victory on the model of the destruction of Chechnya.
  The red line drawn in 2012 related to the use of chemical weapons by the regime. Putin responded to the charge saying unlikely, but if chemical weapons were used by the regime that Russia would view that as a serious matter. Within days Syria agreed to the chemical weapons treaty and steps were taken to remove the chemical weapons. Clearly, Russia had found convincing evidence of the use of chemical weapons. Their removal removed the cause for U.S. action against the Assad regime.
  The U.S. mission in Syria was to reduce the territory controlled by ISIS. That mission has been successfully pursued. With Russia agreeing to Assad's call for military victory and no movement possible in the Security Council for UN action due to Russia's veto the problem of Syria belongs to Putin. He has pursued military victory with Assad and now he must face the consequences.
Armin Schmidt Dec 30, 2016

Diplomacy has one foundation in ethics. I grew into a perspective and subsequent concluding, where ethics is basically a decision between two alternative activities: "best-for-all" and "subgroup liberation."
These two alternatives are found in activity decisions on all social scales. On the global scale best-for-all is currently getting reduced and subgroup liberation is trending. So diplomacy has to adjust as well. The common ground shifts from moral idealism (best-for-all) to subgroup liberation. Now a cut tie can hardly unite, what can unite here is to find an approach where cut ties keep from harming, to name it: responsibility. So for a while,a new foundation for diplomacy might be: responsible subgroup liberation.
Tamer Kirac Dec 30, 2016

Hill's comments and summary of US failure and deficiencies with regards to Syria is to the point. However, making similarities to Kosova are absurd.

US policies in Iraq and Syria have been total failures these past 30 years. In a region with background clutter with US, Russian, Iranian and Sunni-Saudi involvement, there has been no specific and well thought out policy and strategic objective that aims to "help" these two nations to eventually establish democracies.

Both were dominated by dictators of the minority religious sects, respectively.

Unless there is recognition of this unfortunate fact, short term solutions will yield no long term results. The region will continue to be volatile and a hot bed that bears fringe groups venting their anger, in each nation, as well as outside their borders.

http://prosyn.org/4rCfZRB/zh;

Log in/Register

阿勒颇之后

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

What Trump Gets Wrong About EU Defense

Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

How to Protect Workers Without Trade Tariffs

Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

China’s Currency Catch-22

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

What Trump Gets Wrong About EU Defense

Rewriting Europe’s Narrative

China’s Currency Catch-22

How to Debate a Populist

Trump Is in Denial About North Korea

Leaving the Data Dark Ages

Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

Cookies and Privacy