Syria Peace Talks – Geneva 2: Comments From India.

Posted February 3, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“In Aristotelian terms, the good leader must have ethos, pathos, and logos. The ethos is his moral character, the source of his ability to persuade. The pathos is his ability to touch feelings, to move people emotionally. The logos is his ability to give solid reasons for an action, to move people intellectually.”

– Mortimer Adler (American philosopher)

superior2222-1If it was possible, a worldwide broadcast of the leaders of every nation with significant involvement in the Syrian crisis would be positive. This would be a live broadcast, without prepared speeches, and of unlimited duration including the leaders of Syria, United States, Russia, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and the Syrian opposition. This means eight men speaking through Skype or similar means to the entire world, for an entire week at 10-12 hours per day if need be, to finally resolve the crisis and bring peace to the people of Syria.

Because the tragic suffering of Syrian men, women, and children – as well as in countries surrounding Syria – has to stop.

Every media company that carries the talks can raise humanitarian aid funds through advertising from benevolent corporations. Given the large number of media companies around the world, the amounts which could be raised are very significant.

Add to the advertising Syria relief fund amount the donations received from the billions of viewers, and enough money would be raised to adequately carry out humanitarian missions equal to the enormous task.

This proposal has been offered in all seriousness. Because the souls of over 130,000 men, women, and children have passed from this world prematurely. Because millions of Syrian men, women, and children have become refugees from the land of their birth, through no fault of their own. Because the levels of human suffering have surpassed what a civilized world can psychologically stand or accept. And because the conflict, if not stopped in its tracks now, has the potential to spread violence and extremism to other nations in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.

Humanity wants an end to war

To the leaders of these nations, if such a worldwide broadcast does not become a reality, please publish your best ideas for bringing peace to the people and nation of Syria. To all people on this Earth, please publish your best ideas for bringing peace to the people and nation of Syria. As soon as possible.

To men and women around the world who are able to communicate with others, please suggest that everyone think deeply on ways that will bring peace to Syria, and communicate in any and all ways to others. If the leaders of the nations involved in the Syrian situation cannot come up with solutions to bring peace, then some men or women on this planet must have ideas that can lead to peace. At the very least send whatever spiritual energy you have to those who are able to effect peaceful results in Syria, or to men and women who have yet to share solid solutions with the rest of the world.

The time has come for all the world’s people – including leaders of nations, religious/spiritual groups, business enterprises, militaries, non-governmental organizations, entertainers, politicians, sports stars, and others – to come together and end the war in Syria. Because the men, women, and children who have passed away were your brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers. Because the men, women, and children who lost their loved ones and remain on Earth in tremendous psychological, spiritual, and physical suffering and pain are your family members.

“It is sad that man is not intelligent enough to solve problems without killing… The present world crisis can be solved only by a general human revolution against outdated concepts… Man is not a blood-thirsty animal, and war is only due to the greed and lust for power of relatively small groups, the conspiracy of the few against the many.”

– Albert Szent-Gyorgi (1893-1986)

****

People around the world have deep concerns about events in Syria and the Middle East. The following discussion shares the views of experts from India.

(Thank you Rajya Sahba TV at YouTube) 

Syria Consensus Reached: All Foreign Forces Must Leave The Country.

Posted February 2, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“He who hates no creature and is friendly and compassionate to all, who is free from attachment and egoism, equal-minded in pleasure and pain, and forgiving… He to whom the world is not afflicted and who is not afflicted by the world, who is free from elation, envy, fear and anxiety, he is dear to me… He who neither rejoices, nor hates, nor sorrows, nor desires and who has renounced good and evil, he who is thus full of devotion, is dear to me.”

– The Bhagavad-Gita (The Song of God / 2nd century B.C.)

ocean44Compared to the panel on “Money and Influence” coming from the World Economic Forum (WEF), this panel, “End Game for the Middle East”, gives the audience a much more robust, solutions-based discussion on the current situation. In particular, the crisis in Syria and Iran’s nuclear power are very intensely examined and spoken about. Perhaps because the panel members are from the Middle East and directly affected by these events, it is natural that the participants would express themselves more forcefully.

What is most interesting about this panel discussion is the comparatively different views held by the five men who live in the Middle East and Richard Haass – head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and not a resident of any Middle East country. Mr. Haass represents the highest level of a hierarchical power structure that exists on Earth, a power structure which lacks empathy and compassion for average Syrians, or any average citizens of Middle Eastern countries.

Mr. Haass’ views expressed during this talk were totally absent of any shared ideas or solutions for the problems which are currently experienced by people in the Middle East, in stark contrast to the views expressed by the five other members of the panel. He begins by criticizing American foreign policy related to Syria, where they (America) were not prepared when calling for Bashar Al Assad’s exit to take the actions required to remove him, and were then unprepared in having “something” to replace Assad’s government after removing Assad from power.

This first comment by Mr. Haass reminds one of someone looking at the world as some sort of “chess game”, with the United States making moves on the board (the planet Earth) as if this is a completely normal way to conduct international relations. Consider that this first comment by CFR head Haass is what he begins with, his most important thoughts to share here, and that the thoughts are completely America-oriented. He completely excludes that the Syrian humanitarian crisis is severely effecting the Syrian people, and that it is the Syrian people’s suffering and dying that needs to stop  – instead coming across as the CEO of multinational planet Earth.

Mr. Haass offers nothing during this panel discussion in the way of solutions, or at least expressing something from his thinking that relates to hope, coöperation, or a better future for Syrians, Iranians, and the people of the Middle East region. After listening to this panel discussion twice, while focusing especially on Mr. Haass’ comments, there is absolutely nothing positive coming from his mouth. This is an observation which shows that there is a significant amount of manipulation from outside Syria and the Middle East by people who do not live there.

At the end of the panel the woman moderator asked the panel members to predict what the Middle East will look like in one year from now. The CFR’s Richard Haass responds by saying that he finds it “impossible to be optimistic” about the Middle East going forward. Now, my little dictionary defines impossible as “that cannot be done or exist”. He sees no signs of a diplomatic resolve to Syria’s humanitarian crisis, no signs of resolve to the Israel-Palestine (apartheid) issue, and nothing but challenges on the Iran nuclear issue.

Richard Haass then shares his thought that the situation in the Middle East will be worse one year from now. He somewhat allows himself cover by saying that he “hopes I’m wrong” but the question that comes to mind is: “what does Richard Haass of the CFR know which makes him come to find it “impossible to be optimistic”? Does CFR’s Richard Haass have an intimate knowledge of an alternative “End game for the Middle East” – a vision that is not shared by the five men who share the panel with him here in Switzerland?

The greatest question regarding the Council on Foreign Relations’ head Richard Haass’ contribution to this discussion is: “How is Mr. Haass so certain that the Middle East will be in worse condition one year from now?” Is it possible that the interests Mr. Haass represents already hold a vision of the “Middle East endgame chessboard” which will necessitate those interests’ actions that result in the actualizing of their “vision” – regardless of the popular will of the people of the Middle East?

Perhaps there is a level of suspicion and distrust when it comes to the CFR that is to an extent accurate or inaccurate. Be that as it may, it is obvious from listening to this panel that the distance between Mr. Haass expressed views and the five men he shares the stage with in Switzerland is telling and revelatory. Unfortunately the woman moderator didn’t ask Mr. Haass to give specific solutions for the problems in Syria and the Middle East – namely solutions which would increase peace, coöperation, and better living conditions for the men and women of the region. It was plainly obvious that Mr. Haass either did not have any solutions or he intentionally was withholding them here. Finally, with regard to Mr. Haass and this WEF panel, he offered nothing whatsoever in the way of problem-solving for the people of the Middle East. That “nothing” may in fact say everything.

Although Mr. Haass contributed zero (men and women may see this differently) to this panel, the discussion between the five other men was sober, realistic, and focused. The man sitting second from the left, Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs, contributed mightily through his ability to understand that there was a consensus or agreement that all non-Syrian/foreign fighters must leave Syria as the necessary first step to peace.

Five out of six here agreed that all foreign forces must leave, as well as the view that the Syrian people should decide their nation’s destiny. Other suggestions offered by the panelists include cessation of funneling of funds and weapons by outside forces, exiting of foreign military experts, ending of foreign intervention in Syria, focus on diplomatic efforts and dialogue, stop referring to Iran as a “regime” because Mr. Rouhani received 73% of the votes/ballots, an end to blaming other nations for domestic problems, realization that there are no structural impediments to problem resolution, and others.

The man from Turkey mentioned that there was an agreement four years ago between Iran, Turkey and Brazil that held great promise for healing the Iranian nuclear issue, but became rendered impotent as a result of Iranian economic sanctions – leading to a loss of four years of real progress.

This same man from Turkey was the most optimistic member of the panel. He spoke about the importance of removing the Middle East region’s “inferiority complex” – where the region is viewed as one of war, blood-letting, and suffering – and remembering the great accomplishments of civilization through history of the people and nations of the region. He notes that he has trust that the younger generation of Middle Easterners will create miracles.

The most powerful statement from this panel may have been: “The Syrian people’s suffering must end.” 

****

(Thank you to World Economic Forum at YouTube)