http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/jimmy-carter-a-five-nation-plan-to-end-the-syrian-crisis.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Quote
For the past three years, the Carter Center has been working with Syrians across political divides, armed opposition group leaders and diplomats from the United Nations and Europe to find a political path for ending the conflict. This effort has been based on data-driven research about the Syrian catastrophe that the center has conducted, which reveals the location of different factions and clearly shows that neither side in Syria can prevail militarily.
The recent decision by Russia to support the Assad regime with airstrikes and other military forces has intensified the fighting, raised the level of armaments and may increase the flow of refugees to neighboring countries and Europe. At the same time, it has helped to clarify the choice between a political process in which the Assad regime assumes a role and more war in which the Islamic State becomes an even greater threat to world peace. With these clear alternatives, the five nations mentioned above could formulate a unanimous proposal. Unfortunately, differences among them persist.
Iran outlined a general four-point sequence several months ago, consisting of a cease-fire, formation of a unity government, constitutional reforms and elections. Working through the United Nations Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and utilizing a five-nation proposal, some mechanism could be found to implement these goals.
The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr. Assad’s only concession in four years of war was giving up chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to do so if urged by his allies.
Mr. Assad’s governing authority could then be ended in an orderly process, an acceptable government established in Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out the threat of the Islamic State.
The needed concessions are not from the combatants in Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace but refuse to cooperate with one another.
Maybe ... will it matter after Russia, Hezbollah and Iran eliminate the threat to Assad? What chips will Turkey, SA and USA have left to play? It seems to me that the Nato negotiating position on Syria et al has been pure gambit ... perhaps this is more of the same kabuki by Russia and its allies?
There are those that consider anything "Carter" to be complete poison. They will never agree to breath air if they have to share it with him. And NY Times is an organ of the CIA.
Quote from: Baruch on October 24, 2015, 06:18:16 PM
Maybe ... will it matter after Russia, Hezbollah and Iran eliminate the threat to Assad? What chips will Turkey, SA and USA have left to play? It seems to me that the Nato negotiating position on Syria et al has been pure gambit ... perhaps this is more of the same kabuki by Russia and its allies?
If Russia, Hezbollah and Iran can find an alternative to Assad - he is not immortal - they would have their interests protected. That would satisfy the US and Turkey. Only SA might not be pleased. But alone, it cannot do much.