European neighbors Syria and Russia act according to the old saying: if you want peace – prepare for war? Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace – prepare for war. Just this kind of ancient wisdom was published last week by Russian President V.Putin, by the head of neighboring to the European Union country, when he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The weapons that Russia supplies to European Union another bordering country, Syria, are not for war, but rather for peace in that country as explained by Putin.
According to some data from Russian non-Kremlin sources, on 26 May 2012, a military ship, Professor Katsman, was transferred to Syria, to support President Bashir al-Assad and his regime. At the same time, Putin did not deny the release of weapons, but specifically affirmed that the weapons were not delivered for (domestic) war. So it turns out that Russian weapons are meant for peace in the classical theoretical sense. And, according to Putin, Russia is not up to or against anyone. The biggest opposition block Syria’s National Council, which has already named Russia not as a problem solver, but as part of the problem, has taken a stand against Russia. The latter is constantly voting in the UN Security Council meetings on peaceful decision-making – against any kind of western resolutions on Syria in 2012.
So the war in and around Syria goes on. How does the European Union behave more specifically in the real Middle East war-threat environment and in the old, traditional Cold War-like international conflict (Russia versus West)?
In solving international conflicts and crises, the European Union has prioritized non-military instruments, in particular negotiations, although these principles have not always been respected. Libya is an example of the recent past.
With whom is the European Union to negotiate with in Syria, is an intricate matter and linked to a country’s complicated state of affairs, where power struggle takes place between the president Bashar Al-Assad from a Shiite dynasty, however, the majority of the population are Sunnis who are more in opposition with the President and the government. There are also many Christians living in Syria, but they are less noticeable in this conflict, as well as war refugees from Iraq and the Palestinians. So the government and its counterparts must make proposals to resolve the conflict. The role of the European Union (and the wider international community) could be mediation, or third-party diplomacy.
So far, the European Union has played a relatively modest role in mediation diplomacy, trying to have the lead by the Arab states. Tactically, the European Union has imposed a dozen of non-functioning sanctions on al-Assad’s government, more broadly explaining the need for Bashar al-Assad’s resignation, and supporting the UN Observer Mission and, of course, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan’s plan, calling for peaceful solutions to the Syrian conflict parties at six points. Koffi Annan plan seems to be more slogan-nish.
With regard to the Annan plan, it is worth mentioning that the former UN Secretary-General (1997-2006) has been a senior official at the World Organization for Peacekeeping Operations (1993-1996). This period includes also the Rwanda genocide and the Srebrenica carnage. In both cases, the peacekeepers (under the direct authority of Kofi Annan) were in the respective countries but could not prevent the massacres. Annan’s actions have been criticized as being too passive or rather valued as inaction. It has been accepted as a skeptical attitude towards Syria as it calls for a series of appeals but no timetable for filling the points.
Thus all the plans, either drafted by the UN or the EU, the so called Big Plans become useless papers with no serious content; without any strategy to make peace in Syria. Because of the questionable reality and no accomplishment of western planning, a void in the peace making process has emerged and it has proved to be useful for Russia.