Failure in Geneva
Deal was dead on arrival.
by Stephen Lendman
Morning headlines belie continued conflict on the ground. East/West divisions remain. Nothing changed but political rhetoric from Geneva.
After Annan's so-called peace plan, violence increased because Washington planned it that way.
Expect it to continue now. America needs conflict and instability to further regime change plans. Peace and stability defeat its interests.
AP ran a June 30 headline with no text, saying:
"Clinton urges UN Security Council to pass sanctions authorizing military action in Syria"
She insists Assad must go. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said he and his close associates can't lead a transition. He called for Security Council action to tighten sanctions.
Reuters headlined "Assad's fate unclear in world powers' Syria plan," saying:
Geneva participants struck a transitional government agreement. "(T)hey remained at odds over what part (Assad) might play in the process."
Talks were billed as a "last-ditch effort" to halt violence. Similar headlines followed Annan's peace plan. Months later, things are worse, not better.
After Geneva discussions ended, Washington and Moscow issued contradictory statements. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he was "delighted" with the result. Key for him were no preconditions and no attempt to "impose a process" on Syria.
Clinton told reporters:
"Assad will still have to go. What we have done here is to strip away the fiction that he and those with blood on their hands can stay in power."