By Biljana Scott, Oxford University, Senior Lecturer at DiploFoundation and Visiting Professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy. The Geneva II talks have just ended with little to show for them, or so the press claims. They started out with an undiplomatic outburst by the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem directed at UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, when he was asked to respect the time allocated to his opening statements. Nobody tells me what to do was the message, or rather, the double-message: the Foreign Minister was not going to be dictated to with regard to his talk, nor was he going to be dictated to at these talks. A schism immediately emerged over the focus of the talks: the opposition wanting to discuss political transition, the government insisting that terrorism had to be addressed first. This divergence was predictable: the government refuses to negotiate with parties they consider to be terrorists, and therefore want to determine whom to exclude from a possible transition. The opposition, on the other hand, want to focus on the transition process because that way lies legitimisation and empowerment. Although we do not have a blow-by-blow account of what transpired during the Geneva II talks, we can anticipate many of the stumbling blocks by scrutinising the wording of the Geneva 1 Communiqué. Under Heading II, “Clear steps in the transition”, for instance, the first sentence reads: “The conflict in Syria will only end when all sides are assured that there is a peaceful way towards a common future for all in Syria.” This involves: “The establishment of a transitional governing body which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place.” These seemingly innocuous statements beg the following Wh-questions: 1. Who, namely which parties, will constitute that governing body? Will Assad be included? And if not Assad himself, which of his men will be tolerated? Conversely, will the parties Assad’s government calls “terrorists” be included? This has proven to be a major stumbling block in the talks. 2. What counts as a “neutral environment” in a country riven by conflict, hatred and grievances? 3. Where is the “transition” headed: who determines the “common future” – what it should consist of and how it should be implemented? 4. How are all the sides involved to be assured, first that the way forward will indeed be peaceful, and second that the future will be equally acceptable to all in Syria? Some of these questions are addressed in the communiqué, but the wording raises still further questions. For instance, in the same paragraph it says that the Transitional Governing Body “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.” The modal “could” is relatively weak, it allows for diverse options, so clearly there is room to negotiate who will join this body. However, it is a truism that where there is room for negotiation, there is room for disagreement, and sure enough, the question of “who” is the major stumbling block – or should that be “stalling-block” – so far. On the other hand “shall” is a strong modal: it suggests that “mutual consent” in forming the body is not negotiable. But the risk there is that some parties may refuse to play ball, and these spoilers are likely to derail the process. Three short sentences in a multi-page communiqué, and we already have some seemingly intractable differences of interpretation. Fiddling with words while Syria burns seems an indecent irrelevance, refusing to reach an agreement comes across as criminal. Yet the reason the nitty-gritty of language matters so much in diplomacy is because diplomats and the parties they represent have to deliver to their words, otherwise they lose credibility and, ultimately, authority. Credibility and authority were at stake in attending the talks at all, which is why the ambiguous wording of the Geneva I Communiqué was an asset in keeping the door open, and providing room for manoeuvre. The desire to keep parties talking is indeed the primary reason for what often strikes the observer as the dismayingly bland tone of diplomatic language. If truth is the first casualty of war, trust is the prerequisite of peace. As cited above, “The conflict in Syria will only end when all sides are assured…” Without a minimum of trust – enough at least to bring warring factions into dialogue – there can be no assurance given nor progress made. Hence the emphasis in Geneva on securing a dialogue, no matter how fraught, between warring factions; and therein its success.

By Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Judge in the Court of Appeal and Special Advisor International Affairs of the Municipality of The Hague.

In the second half of March 2014 the foreign diplomats and other guests of  The Hague will see different things than in other years in March, about which I will inform you briefly. First there will be local elections on Wednesday March 19^th all over the country. The people in our city will elect 45 members of the ‘gemeenteraad’ (city-council) for four years. The day after the elections the winning party will start talks about forming a team of ‘wethouders’ (aldermen) and about a program, both for the next four years (2014-2018). In this country the mayor is appointed and not elected, so we know already that mayor Van Aartsen (66) will stay at his post. As everyone knows, Monday March 24 and Tuesday March 25 the Nuclear Security Summit will take place. I wrote about it last month. The Hague will be again world news as Legal Capital of the World as mr Ban Ki-moon declared this city again last August during the celebrations of hundred years PeacePalace. For a lot of you this will be a period of hard work, for others two days of a lot of trouble to get somewhere because of security reasons. At the end of that week, the Dutch will celebrate in a modest way 200 years of their first Constitution as a united nation after the Dutch anti-Orangemen/French period (1795-1813). On Saturday March 29 there will be a ‘200 years Constitution Festival’ in The Hague. Some places that normally are closed for the public will be open that day -also for you if you wish- such as the Trêveszaal where the Cabinet gathers every Friday, the Catshuis which is the formal Prime Minister’s house and the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) where King Willem I lived in the first years of our Kingdom. a.beelaerts@planet.nl  

Peter Knoope, Director ICCT. Over the last weeks close to a hundred –mostly young– men have lost their lives in a political conflict in Ukraine.  The narrative of the opposition related to Europe. Europe, a geographic entity. Europe, an economic union. Europe a project of political cooperation. But Europe is much more, and to the opposition in Ukraine, “Europe” stood and stands for something else. I received a message, an open letter, from some youth representatives in Ukraine in which they clarified their position and their ambitions. Their message was strongly stated. They want to belong to a Europe that represents a value system. A Europe that represents democratic values and a space where freedom of speech and other fundamental values are respected and guaranteed. When I read the open letter it reminded me of the early days of the Arab Spring. The civil uprising, the aspirations of the youth, the adherence to fundamental basic human rights, the hope to be able to join the European space. Not the economic space, not the “geographic or political cooperation” space but something more, more fundamental and more important. The open letter went on to explain that the youth in Europe, in the UK, Belgium, France and Holland seem to be critical of the Europe that has been built by their parents. Europe criticized by the youth, for the bureaucracy, the economic crisis, the reduction of national space and many others. But, the letter says, if you criticize Europe for all of that, you are missing the point! The opposition in Ukraine does not want to be part of the European space for any of those aspects. Neither the economy, nor the governance, is the issue. From their perspective Europe is something else. The essence of Europe is the very fact that the youth in the UK, Belgium, France and Holland can openly be critical of it and therefore have a say in its future and the way they can contribute to further improvements. The letter even goes even beyond this and claims that the youth in Europe is spoiled. They, the youngsters in Europe, have not had the struggle, to fight and potentially die, for freedom and democracy. They got it on a silver platter and all they can do is criticize it, and what is more, criticize it for the wrong reasons. I’m not sure. The reasons for criticism may be genuine and authentic. The fear of losing identity and national authority may be a tangible issue. The economic climate is also certainly less advantageous for this generation than ten years ago.  But then again the authors of the letter may have also touched upon the real point: Have we lost sight of the real value of Europe? Have the leaders failed to communicate the real accomplishments in the European space? Do some of us take the peace and human rights we enjoy for granted? Do we talk “money” to much? Do we chase after progress in monetary terms instead of immaterial terms to often? Is that the price we pay, now that the peace dividend is in our basket? If that is the case than we should let the Ukraine case serve as an inspiration to recalibrate our positions. We should (re)learn to value the progress we have made, from a conflict-ridden European space to a peaceful environment.  We should restart to see Europe as a conflict resolution system. A system that requires conference rooms, debates, European council meetings, lots of meetings and a good level of bureaucracy, to make it work.  We should start to see that young people from all our neighboring countries wish to be part of the European space. And we should recognize the fact that they have a reason for that wish, beyond economy, beyond money and material wishes. In other words: I can’t help but feel for those who lost their lives in Kiev because they fought to be part of the European space, while some of our own youth seem to forget the achievements and the progress we made within that space. Because let’s face it. Europe was, and still is, a peace dividend. It is, in its very essence, a conflict resolution project.  A creation of a never-again-generation.  If we want to hold on to those accomplishments we should not be forget about them but care for what we managed to create. A peaceful environment where conflicts are dealt with in a peaceful and democratic manner. For those who doubt it: that has not always been easy. Political extremists and terrorist groups have tried to derail and destroy it. We defended it and now that young people from the neighboring world wish to join, we should be proud and careful about it. When I vote for the EU Parliament in May this year, the young victims of Kiev, will be in my mind. Perhaps take a moment out of your day today to think of those in Kiev that gave their lives because they want to join us in Europe.