Kofi Anan says international unity is key to his mission's success in Syria, writes Graham Usher at the UN Kofi Anan, United Nations-Arab League Special envoy on Syria, had one overriding message on 16 March when he addressed a Security Council rendered mute by divisions over how to end a conflict that has cost the lives of 8,000 civilians: Speak with "one voice". "The stronger and more unified your message, the better the chance we have of shifting the dynamics of the conflict," said a diplomat, summarising comments Anan made to a closed session of the 15-member Council. Anan reportedly reminded members that it was a united Council in 2005 that compelled Syria to withdraw from Lebanon following the assassination of prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri. But Lebanon was another country. With the current conflict Damascus is fighting for its life. And Anan's mandate is that much harder. His mission -- he told reporters in Geneva -- was to "stop the violence; accelerate humanitarian assistance; and establish credibility and confidence for the political process [between regime and opposition] when it is initiated". On 18 March he dispatched a technical team to Damascus to discuss an international "mechanism" that might monitor any ceasefire. He has called for a "two hour pause" in the fighting to evacuate the wounded and ship in supplies to besieged cities like Homs, Idlib and Deraa. The next day, Russia made the same call, a move some saw as a hardening of its position toward the regime. Anan has the full support of the Security Council, including Russia and China, hitherto Syria's staunchest defenders. He has the blessing of Turkey, Qatar and the opposition Syrian National Council. And he has met with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salah, Syria's strongest regional ally. None opposed him, at least publicly. In fact, in their different ways, all see Anan as perhaps "the last chance for a peaceful resolution of the crisis," as one Western diplomat put it. Even President Bashar Al-Assad -- with whom Anan met twice -- has pledged to "cooperate" with his mission. Asked in the closed session to assess the cooperation, Anan was brusque: "disappointing", he said. According to a diplomat cited by Reuters, Al-Assad told Anan that before any ceasefire, not only must the opposition surrender their arms in exchange for a full pardon. "Neighbouring countries" -- read Qatar and Saudi Arabia -- must also end their alleged arming and financing of the opposition. These are deal-breakers -- and were perhaps meant to be. They are also hubris, raised by Al-Assad in the flush of his army routing rebel bases in the cities of Homs, Idlib and Deraa. But they were also put before car bombs exploded near government agencies in Damascus and Aleppo on 18 and 19 March, leaving 29 dead. And before a ferocious firefight between fighters and security men erupted in central Damascus on 19 March, again near security institutions, that left more dead. No one has claimed responsibility but few would be surprised if there is no link between the army's onslaught in the cities and the retaliation in the capital and Aleppo. There are understandably low expectations that Anan's mission can quell such violence anytime soon. But are there better hopes for getting the international unity he craves for his mission? A United States draft resolution is before the Council. It emphasises humanitarian access but preserves strong criticism of the regime's human rights abuses. The onus is also on the regime to end the violence. "The British government position is clear," said United Kingdom UN Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant on 16 March. "We fully support Mr Anan's mission, but clearly it is the primary responsibility of the Syrian government to stop the killing of its own citizens. It is the Syrian government that has the heavy artillery, that has the heavy weaponry and therefore the responsibility is on them to stop the killing first." That view is echoed by the Arab League, France and US. But it is opposed by Russia and China, and on the same grounds that they vetoed two previous Council resolutions on Syria: both insist the opposition must be held at least partly responsible for the violence. And both oppose an Arab League peace plan alluded to in the draft that requires Al-Assad to delegate authority to a deputy ahead of democratic elections. They see this as a veneer for regime change. Given these divides there is a sense among some on the Council that the time has come to ditch the old US resolution. Instead the call is for an entirely new text that would simply back Anan's mission and broad mandate. This would probably be decried by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France and the US as a climb-down before Syrian intransigence. But it would allow Anan to speak with "one voice" when he next meets with the Syrian president, empowered by a council resolution that this time includes the votes of Russia and China. It would break the regime's narrative that the world is divided on the Syrian crisis. With such a united resolution in hand Anan could say, "not any more". It's not clear whether the council can make such a pivot. It's more likely to issue a nonbinding statement condemning the violence, supporting Anan's mission and calling on Damascus to cooperate with it. This would be better than nothing, and Anan will take whatever unity the council can muster. But he knows it would carry none of the legal weight of a council resolution -- and especially in Damascus.
