By Herbert Wulf
DUISBURG, Germany, Dec 19 2024 – Donald Trump, president-elect of the USA, wants to end the Ukraine war within a day, as he has emphasized several times, but without saying how. Despite the brutal clashes on the ground in Ukraine, do negotiations now have a chance? Are we near to a “ripe moment” for negotiations?

The war continues unabated. There is no end in sight. Can we hope that Donald Trump will find a personal connection to Vladimir Putin to end this war? The phone call on 15 November between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Putin – the first telephone contact in two years – was sobering because Putin only reaffirmed his already known positions: He is ready for negotiations, but only on his terms. In other words, recognition of the “new territorial realities” and “consideration of Russian security interests”. In concrete terms, this would mean the handover of the four regions in eastern Ukraine, parts of which are occupied by Russia, and Crimea. Scholz called for negotiations with the aim of a “just and lasting peace”, which is primarily aimed at the withdrawal of Russian troops.

The Russian attack and Ukrainian defence have turned into a war of exhaustion, with current military advantages for Russia. The Russian strategy can be described as an escalation with the hope of a military victory. So far, Ukraine and its supporters have reacted with intense resistance. Western support has escalated with the delivery of more effective weapons and belief that victory is still possible. But increasingly a certain fatigue can be felt among them and Trump has made it clear that the massive support will no longer come from the USA.

What is the consequence for the Ukraine war, and what is the alternative to this battle with more and more deaths? Negotiations now? Is there a chance for peace without military victory? But neither side is ready yet for serious negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky was not happy about Scholz’s initiative and spoke of a policy of appeasement, also because the call counteracts Putin’s international isolation.

The American political scientist William Zartman speaks of the necessary “ripeness” of a conflict as a prerequisite for the success of negotiations. The concept of “ripe moments” centres, according to Zartman, on the adversaries’ perceptions of “hurting stalemates”. The willingness to negotiate increases when both sides realize that a military victory is not possible and that the military potential, i.e. soldiers and weapons, is no longer sufficient. The depressing conclusion is that today, even after almost 1,000 days of war, this situation does not exist in Russia or Ukraine. But the increasing logistical bottlenecks on both sides, the irreplaceable, irrecoverable and permanent losses are perhaps an indication that the conflict is in a process of maturing for negotiations. Even Russia, with its present territorial advances, seems not able to replace its casualties. The arrival of about 10,000 North Korean troops in Russia raises the question of whether the Kremlin can make up for its enormous losses.

Different scenarios

Four scenarios are conceivable, all of which are far from an ideal solution.

First, it is not inconceivable that the war, which has now lasted almost three years, with all its destruction and loss of life, will continue for another few years without an end in sight.

Second, Donald Trump could actually strike a deal with Vladimir Putin, presumably at the expense of Ukraine. Trump believes in deals. Russia would receive the parts of Ukraine it occupies, a demilitarized zone would be established along this border within Ukraine, Ukraine would receive security guarantees (from NATO, the United Nations, or a grouping of neutral states), and a peace treaty would be postponed until later. And “later” could mean decades without a peace treaty.

Third, one side could win militarily. Unlikely, but not completely out of the question. The Kremlin firmly believes in this possibility and is assured by its territorial gains in recent weeks. At the same time, the Russian leadership underestimated Ukraine’s will to resist at the beginning of the full invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and then had to significantly limit its war goals, the overthrow of the government in Kyiv and the integration of Ukraine into the Russian Federation.

The fourth scenario, a ceasefire and a frozen conflict. There are a number of conflicts that are in this state of having no real solution. In recent years, the situation in Korea has been referred to several times in order to consider a similar solution to the Ukraine war. This scenario is perhaps the most likely.

Ceasefire and a frozen conflict: The Korean solution

Of course, every conflict is different, and the respective conditions also differ. Nevertheless, there might be both conflict patterns and patterns of conflict resolution that could provide clues to Ukraine’s future. Sergey Radchenko, a historian at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in the US, pointed out parallels to the Korean War in an op-ed in the New York Times after a year of the Ukraine war. More than 70 years ago, in July 1953, an armistice agreement and the establishment of a demilitarized zone led to the freezing of this war and the division of Korea into two separate states.

Recently, Joseph S. Nye, one of the most influential political scientists in the USA, pointed to a “Korean solution” in an article entitled “What Would Victory in Ukraine Look Like?”. He writes: “If Ukraine defines victory as the return of all land that Russia has occupied since 2014, victory is not in sight. But if it aims to maintain its independence as a prosperous democracy linked to Europe, while reserving its right to the ultimate return of its territory, victory remains possible.” The Korean War also swayed back and forth from 1950 to 1953. Like what is happening now in Ukraine, neither the north nor the south, nor their respective supporters, were prepared to end the war quickly because of hopes of a military victory. The Korean armistice agreement of July 1953 stipulated the status quo ante with the division of the country at the 38th parallel. Korea is still a divided country, and the conflict is a frozen one. A peace treaty was never concluded and the so-called demilitarized zone along the border between the two states is one of the most militarized borders in the world. A permanent ceasefire was reached without a peace agreement.

Proponents of a “Korean solution” point out that the destruction and loss of life has ended, and that South Korea has now become a resilient democracy and emerging economic power. Democratic development and integration in Western Europe could then follow in the same way in Ukraine.

Critics of such a solution describe the Korean ceasefire as a “non-solution”. The Swiss historian Roland Popp, who researches at the Military Academy of the University ETH Zurich, writes that this Korean solution “also covers four decades of one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, massacres of tens of thousands of civilians … or the assassination of the president by the director of the South Korean CIA in 1979.” And he points to the immense costs and uncertainties for Western Europe.

In 1953, a Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission was set up in Korea. In the more than seven decades of the existence of the armistice agreement there have been numerous military skirmishes on the border. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is a threat, just as the North calls the South Korean military with its ally the United States a threat. Precisely for this reason, is it remarkable that this agreement has prevented a new war with heavy losses for more than seven decades. The consequences of a Korean solution for the situation in Europe would probably also mean, as in the case of the Korean peninsula, arms races as during the early days of the Cold War

Neutral states could also play an important role in ending the Ukraine war: for example, India, South Africa, Brazil or Switzerland. If neither side makes significant gains in Ukraine, a ceasefire would not be impossible. Presumably, the Ukrainians would not regain all the territories occupied by Russia. Russia could interpret the abandonment of its actual goal as a partial victory in order to save face. The conflict would be frozen. Not a nice result, but still the end of the war. A frozen conflict is better than a hot war. But the history of frozen wars shows that they can turn into hot wars again at any time. In the case of Ukraine, the imposition of an unfair solution could possibly result in Ukrainian partisan resistance.

A possible fifth scenario, a peace agreement that is binding under international law, with an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, currently seems to be completely out of the question.

Related articles by this author:
– Agonizing over Europe’s Defence: Some Narratives are Getting Ahead of the Facts
– Boots on the ground
– Ten Take-Aways on Russia’s War and Five Ideas for the Future of Ukraine and Beyond

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 2024 – The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad came about following a series of coordinated offensive missions spearheaded by the Syrian opposition which resulted in the seizure of the capital city Damascus. In the days following the fall of Assad’s government, the Syrian Civil War has reached a phase of heightened insecurity, plunging Syria into a state of nationwide insecurity.

On December 7, the Syrian opposition, also known as the Southern Operation Room , led by the Islamic political organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, coordinated an offensive mission in the Rif Dimashq region of Syria, resulting in the Syrian Arab Army withdrawing their forces from Damascus. This, coupled with a concurrent offensive mission, led by the opposition and the Syrian National Army, resulted in the rebels seizing control of Damascus and Homs, marking the end of Assad’s regime in Syria.

For approximately 53 years, the Assad clan has exercised authoritarian rule over Syria, with an extensively documented history of mass incarcerations, executions, and violations of international humanitarian law.

According to a press release from the International Committee of the Red Cross (IRC), during Assad’s 13 year rule over Syria, there have been 35,000 documented cases of enforced disappearances, with accurate numbers likely being far larger.

In a press release issued by Amnesty International, Secretary General Agnès Callamard emphasized the brutality of the Assad family’s rule, saying, “Under the rule of Bashar al-Assad, and before him his father Hafez al-Assad, Syrians have been subjected to a horrifying catalogue of human rights violations that caused untold human suffering on a vast scale. This included attacks with chemical weapons, barrel bombs, and other war crimes, as well as murder, torture, enforced disappearance and extermination that amount to crimes against humanity.”

Following Assad’s departure, thousands of Syrian civilians flooded the streets to celebrate. World leaders also expressed their satisfaction with the end of Assad’s regime. In a televised speech, U.S. president Joe Biden said “At long last, the Assad regime has fallen. This regime brutalized, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians. The fall of the regime is a fundamental act of justice.”

“The Syrian people have suffered under Assad’s barbaric regime for too long and we welcome his departure. Our focus is now on ensuring a political solution prevails, and peace and stability is restored,” said United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Other nations such as France, Canada, and Germany, have indicated relief after Assad’s fall.

The United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) have reported plans to further monitor the developing situation in Syria and facilitate a peaceful transition of power. “Our priority is to ensure security in the region. I will work with all the constructive partners, in Syria and in the region. The process of rebuilding Syria will be long and complicated and all parties must be ready to engage constructively,” said EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas in a social media statement posted to X (formerly known as Twitter). The UN’s special envoy for Syria, Geir Pederson, called for urgent talks in Geneva to discuss measures that will be taken to achieve an “orderly political transition.”

Following Assad’s removal from office, the overall security situation in Syria has become increasingly volatile. According to figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), clashes between armed coalitions remain regular in Syria, particularly in Aleppo and Al-Raqqa. Since the escalation of hostilities in late November, an estimated 1.1 million people in Syria have been internally displaced, particularly in Aleppo, Idleb, Hama and Homs.

According to a report from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), civilian casualties in Syria have risen significantly since the escalation of hostilities, with hundreds having been killed or injured from November to December 8. North-west Syria has seen the most violence, with over 75 civilians having been killed, including 28 children and 11 women. At least 282 others have sustained critical injuries as well, including 106 children and 56 women.

Partners of the UN have discovered at least 52 minefields scattered across Syria in the first ten days of December. Syria’s healthcare system has seen considerable disruptions due to damage from warfare and looting. Hospitals have become overwhelmed due to the sheer influx of injured persons, with psychological distress and trauma being widespread, particularly in children. Movement restrictions and curfews have significantly hampered humanitarian missions.

Additionally, Israel has capitalized on the chaos in Syria, targeting the nation’s military assets. Syria has long been recognized as an ally of Iran, an enemy of Israel. On December 10, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched 480 airstrikes on military operations and equipment in Damascus, Homs, Tartus, Latakia and Palmyra.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that these attacks were to guarantee the security of Israel as well as to achieve a “security zone free of heavy strategic weapons and terrorist infrastructures” in southern Syria. Despite the absence of Irani forces in Syria, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that these attacks were to guarantee a “security zone free of heavy strategic weapons and terrorist infrastructures” in southern Syria.

Nadav Shoshani, a spokesperson for the IDF, denied reports that Israeli forces are to head toward Damascus, but confirmed that they were operating beyond the buffer zone in Syria. However, Shoshani stated that Israel will not interfere with the “internal events” occurring in Syria.

Political analysts have expressed concern for the future of the Middle East following the toppling of Assad’s regime. Marco Carnelos, the former Middle East peace process coordinator special envoy for Syria for the Italian government, described Assad’s ousting as “one of the biggest geopolitical tectonic shifts since the Sykes-Picot agreements in 1916 and the understandings reached at the end of the First World War,” adding that certain nations, such as Iraq and Algeria will have a mixed reaction, while others “will breathe a sigh of relief.”

Arab states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), will be particularly sensitive to further developments in Syria that are motivated by civilian dissidence, fearing that Syria could inspire similar reactions in other Middle Eastern sovereignties.

Sarah Leah Whitson, the Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), informed reporters that Arab states will “make efforts to contain HTS and build alliances with an HTS-government primarily guided by the hope that what emerges will be friendly to them and their interests” in the wake of this major transitional period of Syrian history.

Barbara Slavin, a fellow at the Washington-based Stimson Center and a lecturer in international affairs at George Washington University, states that the success of the Syrian opposition will likely “inspire jihadis in their own countries” to commit similar acts of rebellion and will also shine a light on the injustices committed by their governments.

The international community remains hopeful that the demise of Assad’s regime will bring forth an opportunity for positive development in Syria. Rima Farah, a lecturer at Northeastern University who studies the cultural and political history of the Middle East, opines that the end of Assad’s dictatorship provides the Syrian people with an indispensable opportunity to construct “a (democratic) state with a constitution that protects everyone.”

Political analysts have noted numerous parallels in the Syria situation and the protests that resulted in Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fleeing from Bangladesh to India. Both the Syria and Bangladesh situations were born of civilian discontent with their governments, resulting in protests and acts of rebellion, causing the incumbent leader to abandon their offices and flee to another country.

This is a testament to the importance of the civilian role in policy and decision-making processes. Furthermore, these two developments show that the government must be held accountable for measures that do not serve everyone equally.

Thameen Al-Kheetan, a spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), told our correspondent that accountability is crucial in rebuilding Syria after 14 years of political instability. “This moment carries great hope as much as it raises huge challenges and legitimate uncertainty for Syrians. Accountability is one of the most important issues. Any transitional justice initiative should be inclusive, involve victims and ensure accountability for all past violations and abuses, those committed by the previous government and by all other parties to the conflict. To that end, the current authorities should ensure the preservation of evidence and facilitate the work of our Office as well as international mechanisms,” said Al-Kheetan.

Special Envoy Pederson added that it is imperative for Israeli bombardment and clashes between armed groups in Syria to stop to achieve substantial progress. “There is a real opportunity for change, but this opportunity needs to be grasped by the Syrians themselves and supported by the UN and the international community,” Pederson said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO, Dec 19 2024 – The expansion of the port of Manzanillo, Mexico’s most important port in terms of cargo movement and located on the central Pacific coast, has major environmental impacts, as well as presenting climatic risks.

Work began on 23 November without the required environmental impact study, and includes the extension of the port, the construction of a gasoline storage terminal and a gas and steam power plant in the western state of Colima.“There is significant social damage that has never been resolved. For example, they dredged the lagoon to install the gas plant. When there is dredging, marine sediments are moved, more pollution is caused and when they mix, new pollutants are caused. The damage is irremediable”: Hugo Smith.

For independent expert Hugo Smith, the impact is “tremendous”, as the area hosts significant economic activity, such as agriculture, livestock, salt flats and artisanal fisheries.

“There is significant social damage that has never been resolved. For example, they dredged the lagoon to install the gas plant. When there is dredging, marine sediments are moved, more pollution is caused and when they mix, new pollutants are caused. The damage is irremediable”, he told IPS from the port city of Tampico, in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas.

The specialist stressed the lack of adequate planning, because “in other places they ask for climate forecasts, in this case there has to be very well-planned works, they have to be monitored. There is talk of sustainability as a political slogan, but there are no indicators.”

The expansion includes a storage and distribution facility of the state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) with a capacity for 3.7 million barrels of fuel, another maritime terminal with a capacity to move five million containers, and roadways.

The port site currently covers 437 hectares, housing 19 docks and warehouses.

With the work, due to be completed in 2030, the port area will be extended to 1,800 hectares in the second basin of the Cuyutlán lagoon. There are four regulating basins which capture the rain and separate the lagoon by roads and sluice gates.

With a public-private investment of US$3,480 million, the Mexican government is seeking to turn the port of the coastal city of Manzanillo into the largest in Latin America and the 15th largest globally, by doubling its total capacity.

The expansion is part of a scheme to modernise 10 Mexican federal ports.

The area of Manzanillo, a city in the western Mexican state of Colima, will be impacted in the long term by sea level rise, including the port area that is being expanded and is on the left side of the map depicted. Credit: Climate Central

Important habitat

President Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office on 1 October, has maintained the plans of her predecessor and political mentor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018-2024), to revive old projects. The expansion of Manzanillo dates back to the Felipe Calderón administration (2006-2012) and López Obrador formally took it up again in 2019, but without advancing its development.

The city of Manzanillo, with 159,000 people and more than 800 kilometres west of Mexico City, is surrounded by the lagoons of Valle de las Garzas and Cuyutlán, which are vital to the area’s environment because of the animal and plant species they shelter.

The governmental National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (Conabio) lists as ecosystem values the presence of salt cultivation, artisanal fishing, mangroves, native and migratory birds, as well as crocodiles and turtles, in the 7,200-hectare Cuyutlán lagoon, located parallel to the Pacific coast.

The ecosystem holds 90% of the wetlands in the state of Colima and is registered by Conabio as a priority marine and hydrological region.

In fact, in the last decade the agency warned that the port expansion could “potentially increase water levels and alter important habitats for nesting and feeding of organisms such as birds.”

The works will require, it said, “the opening of new channels of communication with the sea, as well as deeper navigation channels, which could provoke more severe changes in water levels and circulation.”

Hence the importance of the environmental impact assessment, in order to know the repercussions and the mitigation measures envisaged.

In 2017, then president Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018) issued a call for an environmental assessment, but it is ignored if it was carried out. In any case, the works were never undertaken.

Panoramic view of the Cuyutlán Lagoon, which has four basins. The expansion of the port of Manzanillo began in basin 2, with serious environmental impacts. Basins 3 and 4 are considered wetlands of international importance for their natural diversity. Credit: Conabio / Semar

Two lagoons in danger

The lagoon consists of four lagoon basins, the last two of which are adjacent to the area of the expansion.

These are sites of international importance since 2011 under the Convention on Wetlands, as they support vulnerable endangered species and threatened ecological communities; populations of plant and animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of the region.

It is also home to some 20,000 waterfowl and migratory birds, as well as providing food for fish and a nesting ground for turtles.

To the north of the port is the 268-hectare Valle de las Garzas lagoon, which suffers from high levels of sediment due to soil loss from the watershed and urban activities, and has high levels of nutrients due to discharges from nearby treatment plants and human activities. It is therefore in worse condition than the Cuyutlán lagoon.

Despite its condition, the local environmental authorities have not yet declared it a protected area. Meanwhile, the fourth basin of the Cuyutlán lagoon is about to receive this status, although it does not seem that this protection will impede the already initiated port expansion project.

The area also faces climate threats. Between 2030 and 2050, the coastal areas around Manzanillo and inside the Cuyutlán lagoon will be flooded by rising sea levels, according to forecasts by the international scientific platform Climate Central.

In addition, the port area is exposed to increased flooding from rainfall, according to climate studies by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

Dead mangroves on the shore of the Cuyutlán lagoon, the most important wetland in Mexico’s western Pacific. Credit: Conabio / Semar

Inconsistency

Since 2023, the Ministry of the Navy, which manages the federal ports, has been implementing the Port Decarbonisation Strategy, which aims to reduce emissions in operations.

In what is the second-largest economy of Latin America, 227.75 million tonnes were handled between January and October in the 103 ports of the National Port System (SPN). A figure 7.5% lower than that of the same period in 2023.

Manzanillo handled 30.77 million tonnes – almost 1% less than in the same period of 2023 – up to last November.

In 2022, the 36 ports of the 18 SPN administrations emitted 1.33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, almost double the level of 2021, according to the national strategy. Carbon equivalent measures pollution in reference to CO2. Manzanillo released 30% more emissions into the atmosphere than in 2022.

Measurements involve the activity of cargo ships, vessels parked in port, cargo handling equipment, locomotives and cargo trucks, as well as the operation of terminals, operators, service providers, shipping lines, shipping agents, customs, land transport and rail companies.

The Decarbonisation Strategy stipulates emission reductions of 25 % by 2030 and 45 % by 2050, but only sets out general measures, such as planning resilient infrastructure, harmonising management and planning instruments, such as concession titles, master development programmes and operating rules.

It also sets out how to identify, describe and programme the implementation of low-emission energy policies.

Port sustainability includes the consideration of environmental, economic and social aspects, such as pollution, dredging of nearby areas, return on investment and job creation.

But the installation of more hydrocarbon terminals, fuel storage facilities and a gas-fired power plant contradict the strategy’s goals. Official publicity presents it as sustainable because of its gas consumption, despite the fact that it is a highly polluting fossil fuel.

Moreover, the 2021-2026 master programme for port development does not address environmental considerations.

As is the case in the rest of Latin America, no Mexican port appears on the project map of the World Ports Sustainability Programme, an association that brings together the world’s largest environmentally friendly facilities.

Expert Smith pointed to a greater focus on ship operations to improve port sustainability.

“Ships are increasingly environmentally constrained. Ports do not provide renewable energy. Decarbonisation must focus on ships and the biggest polluters are container ships,” he said.