Again Syrian regime has abused void, offered by UN Security debate on new resolution and the Arab League agreement, to accelerate and intensify its crack down on the opposition. Some believe that the Assad regime wants to break the back of the opposition, literally through a security/military offensive, before Arab League observers can arrive. Similarly, in this moment of rapid developments and transition, it seeks to keep a strong resolution within the UN Security Council at bay. Russia’s role in this scheme may backfire though, especially if the Arab League determines that the Syrian regime is acting in bad faith and presses the UN Security Council for a tough stance on Syria. Arab League Observers Advance Mission: 15 members of the Observers Advance Mission are scheduled to arrive as early as today – as Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby clearly is concerned that a vacuum between agreement and deployment could be exploited by the Syrian regime. The Observers though will face obstructionism probably under the veneer of diplomatic protocol and conflicting readings of the Arab League-Syria Agreement. Elaraby will be shrewd to the maneuvers, but his greatest leverage is ability to influence the UN Security Council discussions on the “Syria Resolution.” Russian Role in UN Security Council: Ever since unexpectedly introducing a draft UNSC “Syria Resolution” last week, it appears that Russia is now keen to slow-delay the process perhaps having achieved the tactical objective of preemption. The EU and most Arab and independent states want language that reflects the Arab League censure and sanctions of Syria as well as demands. They are also seeking an arms embargo that applies to the Syrian Government and not only opposition. Finally, there is a demand for accountability. (Top Photo – Ambassador Churkin of Russia Federation and my clever counterpart in 1990’s negotiations on Bosnia & Herzegovina). US Position: The US is largely in line with the EU and Arab League. Washington has even reiterated its call for Assad’s resignation/departure. However, on the issue of accountability, there is a nuanced but significant difference. The US is NOT enthusiastic about referring Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The notion of “accountability” means perhaps something yet to be defined. Referring Syria to the ICC though presents a unique dilemma for Washington as Syrian sovereign territory also includes the Golan Heights – thus Israel could be implicitly subject to ICC jurisdiction in terms of its actions in the Golan. This is a view expressed by Bill Pace, Convener of the Coalition for the ICC. See our very recent Interview: diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/icc-2012-part-2-bill-pace-interview/29499. A carve-out could be made, as it was in Sudan that limited ICC jurisdiction by the UN Security Council referral to Darfur - with intention to exclude the then transformative Sudan/South Sudan divide. For many reasons, Syria’s map will define the potential options and preferences of various delegations. (See Map). Safe Areas? The opposition has asked for a variety of semi-military options to counter the Syrian regime security forces. Carving out “safe area” zones is one matter, but enforcement is another. There is no will, except for perhaps Turkey as the situation may further develop down the road. That is also one reason why Russia has been pressing for language that explicitly would exclude military action. READ –“What Next on Syria: It is Already Civil War but Insurgency?” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/what-next-on-syria-it-is-civil-war-already-but-insurgency-by-ambassador-mo/33413 It is unavoidable that this will conclude as either the Assad regime (even if without Assad) or the opposition prevailing. The Arab League plan will perhaps allow for a more gradual transition, but a continuation of conflict appears almost inevitable – until one side prevails. From its observer status, I believe that the Arab League feels it has a foot in the door, and thus eyes and greater standing to affect the work of the UN Security Council and perhaps even the ICC. (Read: -“Capitulation to Syria Regime or Foot in Door for Arab League?” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/capitulation-to-syria-regime-or-foot-in-door-for-arab-league-by-ambassador-mo/43034). Think though this is likely to persist as “diplomatic trench warfare” as well as continued violence on ground in Syria. The ICC may in the end be most effective means to secure closure – I do not adhere generally to the theory that somehow on international platform justice and peace may be conflicting objectives – to the contrary, at least in this instance, legality and justice will translate to peace as well. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey


 Facebook Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect”


 Twitter – Follow at DiplomaticallyX

 War Crimes Justice Channel diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/war-crimes-justice