• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran backs six-month Syria 'transition' at Vienna peace talks

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Reuters reported:

Iran signaled on Friday it backed a six-month transition period in Syria followed by elections to decide Bashar al-Assad's fate, a proposal floated at peace talks as a concession but which the president's foes rejected as a trick to keep him in power...

But Assad's enemies say a new election would keep him in power unless other steps were taken to remove him. His government held an election as recently as last year, which he easily won. His opponents have always rejected any proposal for a transition unless he is removed.
Click to expand...

Iran backs six-month Syria 'transition' at Vienna peace talks | Reuters

IMO, this idea might form a starting point for a constructive approach for resolving Syria's sectarian conflict. In its present form, it is not viable. Some necessary steps include:

1. Obtaining a ceasefire.
2. Defining the specifics of the transitional arrangement with a robust enforcement mechanism.
3. Creating an environment in which free elections are possible (no intimidation or worse) in areas in which stability has been achieved during the ceasefire and a framework for elections, including a mechanism for dealing with an illegitimate outcome (defined by the elections having not met international standards, not the elected candidate or candidates).
4. Intrusive international supervision of the election. If the election meets international standards, the outcome should be respected regardless of whom is elected. If not, then the outcome should be treated as illegitimate.

Of course, there is the possibility that Syria is so fractured that a unified state is no longer feasible. A contingent track that would lay out a course for such a situation should be explored simultaneously.
 
Re: The tax bill currently being debated largely protects a zero income tax rate for

donsutherland1 said:
Reuters reported:



Iran backs six-month Syria 'transition' at Vienna peace talks | Reuters

IMO, this idea might form a starting point for a constructive approach for resolving Syria's sectarian conflict. In its present form, it is not viable. Some necessary steps include:

1. Obtaining a ceasefire.
2. Defining the specifics of the transitional arrangement with a robust enforcement mechanism.
3. Creating an environment in which free elections are possible (no intimidation or worse) in areas in which stability has been achieved during the ceasefire and a framework for elections, including a mechanism for dealing with an illegitimate outcome (defined by the elections having not met international standards, not the elected candidate or candidates).
4. Intrusive international supervision of the election. If the election meets international standards, the outcome should be respected regardless of whom is elected. If not, then the outcome should be treated as illegitimate.

Of course, there is the possibility that Syria is so fractured that a unified state is no longer feasible. A contingent track that would lay out a course for such a situation should be explored simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I think you made a mistake in the title of this thread
 
Re: The tax bill currently being debated largely protects a zero income tax rate for

sangha said:
I think you made a mistake in the title of this thread
Click to expand...

Thanks. I inadvertently pasted the wrong title and asked the moderators to fix it via the report post button. I greatly appreciate their responsiveness and the correct title is now posted.
 
Considering the number of Syrians displaced, I believe their voice would have to be heard in such an election.

I also I think those who obviously wouldn't be party to a ceasefire (daesh, nursa) would have to be wiped out first.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Reuters reported:



Iran backs six-month Syria 'transition' at Vienna peace talks | Reuters

IMO, this idea might form a starting point for a constructive approach for resolving Syria's sectarian conflict. In its present form, it is not viable. Some necessary steps include:

1. Obtaining a ceasefire.
2. Defining the specifics of the transitional arrangement with a robust enforcement mechanism.
3. Creating an environment in which free elections are possible (no intimidation or worse) in areas in which stability has been achieved during the ceasefire and a framework for elections, including a mechanism for dealing with an illegitimate outcome (defined by the elections having not met international standards, not the elected candidate or candidates).
4. Intrusive international supervision of the election. If the election meets international standards, the outcome should be respected regardless of whom is elected. If not, then the outcome should be treated as illegitimate.

Of course, there is the possibility that Syria is so fractured that a unified state is no longer feasible. A contingent track that would lay out a course for such a situation should be explored simultaneously.
Click to expand...

If Iran is genuine about supporting this solution (which I doubt), this is almost the best possible solution. I would add, however, that Assad should be excluded from the transition period and the elections due to how controversial he is. Instead, the transitional ruler and/or Baath candidate should be a high-ranking Sunni official who has demonstrated his loyalty to the regime yet has little blood on his hands. And, similar to what Ben said, international military support should be provided to the government and rebel forces party to the agreement in order to help them crush any rejectionist factions.
 
MadLib said:
If Iran is genuine about supporting this solution (which I doubt), this is almost the best possible solution. I would add, however, that Assad should be excluded from the transition period and the elections due to how controversial he is. Instead, the transitional ruler and/or Baath candidate should be a high-ranking Sunni official who has demonstrated his loyalty to the regime yet has little blood on his hands. And, similar to what Ben said, international military support should be provided to the government and rebel forces party to the agreement in order to help them crush any rejectionist factions.
Click to expand...

It will probably be difficult to find anyone who doesn't have some blood on their hands, directly or indirectly. More than likely, the transition will need to reflect the battlefield situation. Afterward, a political process can lead to a new government. Hopefully, that will be the case, but it is extremely difficult to build governments that enjoy broad legitimacy in the wake of bitter sectarian conflicts.

Finally, like you, I have my doubts about Iran. Iran is looking out for its interests. It will favor a solution that advances those interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom