Peacemaker Annan Quits Syria

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan would step down from his position as international peace envoy to conflict-torn Syria at the end of August. Former U.N. Secretary General Annan, 74, agreed in February to act as a special representative for both the United Nations and the Arab League to negotiate a peace plan. Initially he received unanimous backing from the Security Council.

But as fighting intensified in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere, it became clear that Annan's hopes for a lasting ceasefire would not materialize anytime soon. The seasoned diplomat cited "finger-pointing and name-calling," as well as lack of international support for his peace mission, as factors that contributed to his decision to quit the field. Annan attributed the ineffectiveness of his peacemaking mission to "the increasing militarization on the ground and the clear lack of unity in the Security Council" that undermined his ability to broker a peaceful solution to Syria's civil war.

Syria expressed regret that Annan was going. British Foreign Secretary William Hague and French Ambassador Gerard Araud both expressed the view that Annan's six-point peace plan for Syria, which called for the Syrian government to withdraw its heavy weapons and troops from populated areas and for anti-Assad fighters to put down their guns, was still the best option for securing an end to the conflict. But Araud said the U.N. observer mission would likely "disappear" on August 19, the day its recently renewed mandate expires.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice failed to mention the United Nations in a recent statement, suggesting the international body was becoming increasingly irrelevant in efforts to resolve the Syria conflict.

The fighting for Syria's two biggest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, intensified as the country continued its rapid slide into full-scale civil war after peaceful protests began against the government of President Bashar al Assad a year and a half ago. Violence has already claimed an estimated 18,000 lives. Up to three million Syrians are struggling to find adequate food, water, fuel, housing and medical care.

As nations supporting Assad and those supporting rebel forces faced off in a war of words, none seemed willing to accept responsibility for the failure of the peacemaking mission. Louay Hussein, a Syrian writer and opposition activist, said in an e-mail: "The responsibility of the failure of Mr. Annan in his mission is the responsibility of the international community, and not the Syrian parties to the conflict."

Algeria's former foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi, 78, who served as a diplomat in South Africa following its apartheid era; as U.N. envoy to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks; and in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, has been suggested as the probable successor to Annan in the Syrian peace initiative. "Millions of Syrians are clamoring for peace," Brahimi said. "World leaders cannot remain divided any longer, over and above their cries."

More on this story can be found at these links:

Resigning as Envoy to Syria, Annan Casts Wide Blame. New York Times
Frustrated Annan Quits as Syria Peace Envoy. Yahoo! News
Syrians Agree to Lakhdar Brahimi's Bid as Annan's Successor. Ahram Online
Expected Annan Replacement Urges Powers to Unite on Syria. Reuters

The Big Questions

1. Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9), yet he declined to arbitrate a disagreement between two men over the distribution of their inheritance (Luke 12:13-14). He is called the Prince of Peace, yet he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). He told his disciples to bring a sword to the Garden of Gethsemane yet rebuked Peter when he used it, saying, "... all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Then he healed the man injured by that sword, who was part of the crowd who had come to arrest Jesus. How are we to understand this enigmatic Christ who Paul says is our peace? How do we interpret what he taught about peace-making in light of how he lived?

2. Annan embarked on his peacemaking mission in February, yet a mere six months later he determined that he could not succeed in his goal. If, as Ecclesiastes 3:8 says, there is "a time for war and a time for peace," is there a right time for peace-making and a time to withdraw from the peacemaking effort?

3. "I accepted this task, which some called 'Mission: Impossible,' for I believed it was a sacred duty to do whatever was in my power to help the Syrian people find a peaceful solution to this bloody conflict," Annan said. In what sense is peacemaking a sacred duty for the Christian? Is peacemaking really an impossible mission? If so, why should we attempt it at all?

4. Even though Kofi Annan was sent as a peace envoy by the United Nations, that international body was not united in support of his mission. Is it possible for a would-be peacemaker to succeed without the backing of those who sent him? Is it possible for warring parties to foster peace elsewhere when they cannot make peace among themselves?     

Confronting the News With Scripture

Psalm 120:6-7
"Too long have I had my dwelling among those who hate peace. I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war." (For context, read 120:1-7.)

Questions: What reasons might people or nations have to prefer war over peace? Can you think of a situation in which you preferred to remain at odds with someone rather than seeking to be reconciled? What motivated you to maintain the status quo instead of pursuing peace?

Proverbs 10:10
"Whoever winks the eye causes trouble, but the one who rebukes boldly makes peace." (For context, read 10:9-12.)

Questions: How might international leaders be "winking the eye" about the Syrian conflict, thus causing more trouble? Could it be said that Annan's six-point plan was a bold rebuke? Then why has it not made peace?

Proverbs 22:10
"Drive out a scoffer, and strife goes out; quarreling and abuse will cease."
Proverbs 26:21
"As charcoal is to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome person for kindling strife."
Proverbs 28:25
"The greedy person stirs up strife, but whoever trusts in the LORD will be enriched."
Proverbs 29:22
"One given to anger stirs up strife, and the hothead causes much transgression."
Proverbs 30:33
"For as pressing milk produces curds, and pressing the nose produces blood, so pressing anger produces strife."

Questions: How have scoffing, quarreling, greed and anger in the international community, as well as among the combatants on the ground, contributed to strife in Syria?

Luke 12:13-15
"Someone in the crowd said to him, 'Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.' But he said to him, 'Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?' And he said to them, 'Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.'" (For context, read 12:13-34.)  

Around three centuries before Jesus, the comic playwright Menander (whom Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:33 -- "bad company ruins good morals") wrote a play called The Arbitrators. Two slaves have a dispute. One of them has found an abandoned baby with a valuable piece of jewelry. He does not want the baby, so the second slave adopts him. However, the second slave thinks the baby should get the medallion because it may give him a clue to his identity when he's an adult. They stop a free citizen and ask him to arbitrate. The citizen says he can't be bothered, and the slaves remind him that everyone has a stake in justice and should help adjudicate when asked. Apparently this was a common attitude in the ancient world. Justice is something all were required to take part in. It's not just a question of whether a U.N.-appointed mediator backs off.

Question: Are we obligated to step into the role of judge or arbiter every time we are invited to do so? Why or why not? When should we accept that responsibility, and when might it be best to decline that role?

Have you ever tried to wriggle out of jury duty? When there's a dispute in the church, how do you respond?

Proverbs 26:17
"Like somebody who takes a passing dog by the ears is one who meddles in the quarrel of another."  
Matthew 18:15-17
"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (For context, read 18:15-20.)

Questions: What is the difference between legitimate peacemaking efforts and meddling in the quarrel of others? When is it appropriate to bring a third party into a conflict situation? For what purpose? When is it not appropriate? In the context of conflict in the family of God, comment on this, from team member Joanna Loucky-Ramsey: "Triangulation is strangulation."

Closing Prayer
 
God of Peace, who sent your Son to make peace with us when we were determined to fight you with every fiber of our being, help us to pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding, to depart from evil, do good, and seek peace, that we may be true and blessed children of God who make peace whenever it is in our power to do so. In Jesus' name. Amen. (based on Psalm 34:14; Matthew 5:9; and Romans 14:19)