#calcab

By Margaux Lucas - Writer/Journalist

Last week the Council of the Arab League succeeded in shaping a resolution on further military cooperation and security in the Arab world. Nevertheless, the run of negotiations unveiled different times in the debate. As guest States joined the conference, the Council of the Arab League progressed. The Council succeeded in achievements only when opening negotiation to other members.

As the Council of the Arab League started, only nine representatives were in the room. Yemen, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian National Council, Iraq, Libya, Jordan and Egypt all agreed on establishing a stable situation in Middle East. The Cabinet remained focused on the Syrian struggle for days. All parties acknowledged their support to the Syrian rebels groups and urged the international community to stabilize the situation while hearing the rebels' voice “that has spoken so loudly”. Representative of the SNC, Hillary Briffa, played a key role on giving objectives to the conference. Insisting on the solution assessed in the Geneva Communique, she urged to dismiss Assad from power for “the longer we wait, the more citizens are dying”. In a climate of emergency, the Arab Nations tried to work together on a decisive resolution on the Syrian conflict. Nevertheless, the debate never started. Member States stagnated. Issues divided the Council: how could the Council dismiss Assad? Could member States interfere by military means? What group would then be empowered? The Syrian National Council alone could not influence any action from the organization, nor could it lead to any progress on the Syrian future.

          Introducing innovation in the debate

Facing stagnation, thePresident of Turkey urged member States to be “proactive” and conceded to invite other States to negotiations. Soon, the Minister of Health from Morocco joined the debate. Morocco brought new ideas to discussion and encouraged openness in the Council. The sudden death of Syrian President Bashar al Assad overwhelmed the run of the Council. Syrian National Coalition’s representative, Hillary Briffa, accepted to invite a Syrian regime member. Lee Marsden, Minister of General Security under Assad, had the opportunity to express his will to establish a new regime, “free of torture and free of Human Rights abuses”. After years of reciprocal ignorance and intolerance, the two sides of Syria headed for dialogue and cooperation. They succeeded in achieving an ambitious peace treaty, ending three years of civil war. For the Syrian struggle was solved, the Council of the Arab League focused on other issues. It had to respond to Lebanon’s invasion by Israel. During this last Council, the Arab League reaffirmed its eagerness to weigh in the world’s affair by condemning Israel’s behavior and even considering a military intervention by “Arab troops”. Member States are also willing to shape a future together. With this aim, they finalized the Amos Peace treaty to ensure a “strong body” to Arab States. Moreover, they expressed a deep sense of initiative by proposing to host the 2020 Arab World Football Cup in… Syria, for it is now meant to be a peaceful country!

By Margaux Lucas - Writer/Journalist

After years of civil war and violence, the National Coalition of Syria and member of the former regime agreed on a peace treaty that ends up the conflict. The Nobel Committee awarded for its Peace prize the leaders of negotiations: Dr. Hillary Briffa and Dr. Lee Marsden.

In honor of duo’s “extensive work in finally negotiating and agreeing to a peace treaty and bringing the conflict which has ravaged the Syrian Republic for the past three years to an end”, the Nobel Committee awarded Hillary Briffa – representative of the National Coalition - and Lee Marsden – Minister of General Security - the Nobel Peace prize. On the occasion of the Council of the Arab League, both sides of Syria succeeded in overcoming their division. Announcing the award in Oslo, Norwegian Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland affirmed “it wanted to recognize the extensive work and laudable achievement of the pair”. Negotiations went fast between the pair, the path towards peace was not that regular though.

          The tormented walk for peace in Syria

Since its creation on November 2012, the Syrian National Coalition aimed to replace Bashar-Al-Assad's government and its “symbols and pillars of support”, responsible for the killing of thousands of Syrians. After years of struggle, the coalition got a domestic recognition and support all over the world. Finally, the coalition was invited to join the Council of the Arab League on March 2013. 10 months after its integration, the Syrian National Coalition took the rise up to play a key role in negotiations with the regime. The coalition used to never accept the presence of Assad’s government members at its session. However, the recent murder of Assad changed the coalition’s position. Representative Dr. Briffa conceded to invite Minister of General Security, Lee Marsden, to set an agreement that would appease situation for civilians. Dr Briffa and Dr Marsden were instrumental in drafting the peace treaty, which was greeted by the Syrian population.

          Reactions and further cooperation

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon praised the award, saying that Dr. Briffa and Dr. Marsden had “greatly strengthened the prospects for peace in the Arab region”. The Secretary General of the Syrian National Coalition affirmed its pride and delight for the work achieved by brilliant Hillary Briffa. The treaty was built upon the outcomes of the 2012 Geneva I Communique. It goes a step further by enacting an armistice for the cessation of violence to provide an environment conductive to the rebuilding of Syria. Dr. Briffa said the award was a “great honor yet the true triumph has been to bring respite to the suffering people of Syria”. Dr Marsden added that this was the start of a “new era of cooperation and a chance to enact the necessary grassroots changes that will enable the country to move forward”. Nevertheless, the signing of the treaty is only the beginning and a reminder that there remains much work to be done in securing a democratic and peaceful Syrian state. Moreover, both parties still have to further cooperation on the Arab region issues and agree on the settling of new relations with their neighbors.

By Margaux Lucas - Writer/Journalist

The Arab Springs left an increasing volatility of security in the whole region. During its crisis committee, the Council of the Arab league aimed to fix that burning issue.

As the Arab Springs shook Arab States with instability, security became a growing concern in the Middle East. Neighboring non-Arab States tirelessly attempt to take advantage of this moving environment. Iran regularly visits Tomb al Kobra and Tomb al Soghra islands, which belong to the United Arab Emirates. Thanks to the United States support, Israel aims to reactivate its peace process in Palestine. Even though negotiations have been going on for years, the nuclear talks with Iran never succeeded. Security has become a general issue for the region, as Middle East faces great changes. States’ views are shaped by self-interests. Is the Arab League to arise a common view on security?

          Security in the Middle-East at the aftermath of the Arab Springs

Many issues are related to security in the Middle East. Solving conflicts, arm control at boundaries, involvement of Russia and Western countries, disarmament of civilians are all linked to internal and external safety in the Arab world. In a moving environment, one could imagine that these questions may be resolved by the strict respect of the Rule of Law and international standards.  However, reinforcing security for Arab States do not go hand in hand with political legitimacy. Multilateral Gulf Cooperation Council reinforced regimes security to the detriment of their own societies and neighboring states. In the aftermath of the Arab Springs uprisings, democratically-elected governments face the difficult task of reforming security institutions, knowing that they will not be able to use them to acquire lasting political legitimacy.

          Council of the Arab league, inmate of violence in the region

At its first day of negotiations, the Council of the Arab league became a field of violence between its members. Arming each other’s representatives on their own land, the Council had to deal with negotiations and appeasing growing tensions after murders and poisoning. Sunni groups crossed the border into Iran from Iraq and led raids, wounded dozens of civilians. Heavy military troops were sent at the frontier. Same day, Turkish artillery fired salvos into Syria. Moreover, Bashar Al-Assad, controverted Syrian president, got murdered. Lebanon also got attacked by Israel. The leader of Iran got assassinated. Since the beginning of the session, President of Yemen urged to stabilize the situation and guarantee safety to its inhabitants. It introduced the idea of an intervention of “radical forces”. Days after, Saudi Arabia proposed a military intervention to maintain peace and security. Military means are seen as the only way to prevent further violence and instability. For the situation driving out of control, many Arab nations suggest an intervention of States forces.

          A policy, difficult to implement

Nevertheless, Turkey observed that many of Arab Nations means are related to the United States help. This kind of intervention would compromise the autonomous dealing of Arab affairs by their leaders. Moreover, many Arab nations are already trying to maintain safety in their own territory and cannot imagine committing in a general mechanism to encourage security in the whole region. What remains at stake of the ongoing Council of the Arab League is the choice for a model of security. Should it prevent injuries of Nations’ populations, leaders, or the common safety? The question still meddle the Arab League in its negotiations.