RUTHFULLY YOURS

There is a convention in British journalism that whenever the House of Commons holds a long debate on a matter of war, it is said to have “risen to the occasion”. MPs are then ordinarily reported to have shown the depth, breadth and “considerable experience” of the House. But the day-long debate in December over whether British planes should join the multinational coalition against Islamic State in Syria showed no such thing. It showed a deracinated, easily distracted and strikingly fearful chamber — in other words a chamber that perfectly reflected the nation at large.

Not the least of the bad signs was how self-absorbed the House had become. Rather than debating the serious issue of international terrorism or putting British pilots in harm’s way over Syria, opposition parties repeatedly complained about a reported remark of the Prime Minister’s on the eve of the debate when he was said to have described those opposed to Britain joining air strikes against IS in Syria as “terrorist sympathisers”. Given that the Labour party is now led by two men who have spent decades supporting, honouring and hosting terrorist groups ranging from the IRA to Hamas and Hezbollah this description was not such an outrageous fiction as Labour MPs among others portrayed it to be. Nevertheless, each took it in turns to express their hurt over the nomenclature.

But even this did not exemplify the self-absorption of the House so much as its preening wordplay over what to call the enemy. Not three weeks after IS’s men had slaughtered 130 people and wounded many more in Paris, the House of Commons seemed less concerned over how to avenge our friends in France (or our own citizens slaughtered by IS months earlier on a beach in Tunisia) than they were about avoiding offence. This was personified in the form of a new and otherwise obscure Conservative MP called Rehman Chishti. In response to the rise of IS this young member has been trying to make his name by petitioning politicians, the media and especially the BBC, to call IS “Daesh”. The fact that “Daesh” simply means IS in Arabic makes it a fatuous demand. The claim that IS dislike being called Daesh because it sounds like something rude in Arabic makes it pathetic. Perhaps Chishti and Co think we can “bait” IS into submission?

See, that wasn’t so difficult. Get a bunch of diplomats and bureaucrats under the one roof, add expense accounts, room service and photo ops and — Presto! — peace is commanded to break out in Syria, not to mention making nice with a grateful Gaia
Boy, isn’t global diplomacy on a roll at the moment? Hot on the heels of the ‘historic’ climate change agreement negotiated in Paris, we now receive the joyous tidings, beautifully timed for a sectarian festive season, that ‘the UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution outlining a peace process in Syria’. BBC News tells us:

The resolution endorses talks between the Syrian government and opposition in early January, as well as a ceasefire.

Well, that ought to do it. Obviously, the idea of talks and a ceasefire was beyond the wit of the Syrian factions until it received the imprimatur of the Security Council. The smacking of foreheads and rueful grimaces in Damascus must be deafening!

Borrowing from the COP21 rhetoric and imparting irresistible momentum to the initiative, US Secretary of State John Kerry, announced that the resolution sent:

…a clear message to all concerned that the time is now to stop the killing in Syria. The resolution we just reached is a milestone, because it sets specific goals and specific timeframes.

Far be it for me to rain on their parade, but a couple of minor sticking points remain:

the position of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad in such negotiations remains unresolved (Russia wants him in, the US wants him out), and
the role of ISIS and other like-minded organisations in this eminently reasonable proposal is problematical despite the fact that the resolution specifically excludes them.

The “General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina” was negotiated at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995. It ended the Bosnian war and provided for a decentralized state comprised of two entities of roughly equal size: the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska, RS). The General Framework Agreement, including 11 annexes, was formally signed in Paris on December 14, 1995. Annex 4 of the Agreement is still Bosnia and Herzegovina’s de facto constitution, the basis for its territorial-political divisions and its complex government structure.
For all its shortcomings, and in spite of many attempts to revise or reverse it, the Dayton Agreement has provided a platform for peace among close to four million Bosniaks (i.e. Muslims, 48%), Serbs (33%), and Croats (14%). Bosnia’s relative stability may soon be threatened by political forces in Washington intent on altering the delicate balance achieved at Dayton. Already during her 2009 confirmation hearings as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton declared she was committed to wrapping up what she called “the unfinished business in the Balkans,” and she still believes that the U.S. needs to revise Dayton in the direction of greater centralization of Bosnia at the expense of the autonomy of the two entities – which in reality would adversely affect only one of them, the Serb Republic. It is to be feared that the push for Bosnia’s “constitutional reform” will be relaunched if Mrs. Clinton becomes president. To her, “Bosnia” is an obsession which has generated outright lies over the years.