On The Arab League "Syria Resolution", AL Address + Resolution

In accordance with the approval of the Secretary-General for a delegation of the Arab League to address the United Nations Security Council, the delegate on behalf of the Permanent Mission to the United Nations of The Kingdom of Morroco, H.E. Mohamed Loulichki, would like to convene a session of the United Nations Security Council in order to allow for the requested address to be presented.

The matter to be addressed is the ongoing situation in The Syrian Arab Republic, which has been a matter of frequent debate in this chamber. The League of Arab States has passed a resolution on behalf of the organization which has outlined a potential path forward for the international community in handling and addressing the crisis. As an integral, founding member of the League of Arab States, The Kingdom of Morocco attaches particular interest to this proposal, and urges the UNSC to consider its provisions carefully.

Representing the League of Arab States:
H.E. Hasan Abu-Nimah, Permanent UN Ambassador of Jordan
H.E. Mohamed Loulichki, Permanent UN Ambassador of Morocco*

Representing the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria: 4/2012-9/2012
Lieutenant-General Babacar Gaye, Former Chief Military Observer and Head of UNSMIS (Senegal)**
Hervé Ladsous, Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (France)**
Kofi Annan, Former UN and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria***

As President of the United Nations Security Council (March 2013), the ambassador to the United Nations of The Russian Federation, H.E. Vitaly Churkin, shall preside over the debate. The ambassador of Morocco yields the floor to the UN Ambassador of Jordan and special representative of The League of Arab States.

*The Jordanian request asked for "other members of the Arab League" to address the UNSC. Being that Morocco is the current Arab state on the UNSC and therefore de facto representative of the Arab League in the UNSC, Morocco shall, for the purposes of this thread, be considered the primary representative of the Arab League along with the ambassador of Jordan. This position can be NPC'd by another member of the Arab League. I would recommend ChrisRev, as Egypt was an integral player in the Syria Resolution, specifically mentioned in the Jordanian request, and a mod. Though, ultimately, it doesn't matter who takes it up.
**These two positions are added only by the obvious necessity of their presence and do not specifically require an NPC. However, being that the Syrian player would have the most insight as to the situation in the country, Bugs will be granted the option to NPC them should he choose, or should they require an NPC for a specific portion of the debate, provided Bugs respects the separation of IC perspectives of Assad and the representatives in question.
***IG, Kofi Annan has not resigned and is sill technically considered the UN and AL envoy to Syria. He will be NPC'd by me if he is needed.

"Mister President, distinguished members and honored guests, on behalf the Arab League, I have the pleasure of reporting to the Security Council that the league stands ready to assist in bringing the crisis in Syria to a peaceful, constructive end.

"Last week the Council of the Arab League voted overwhelmingly to authorize a resolution to formalize a policy of collective, regional action to bring pressure on the forces of disunion in Syria to cease waging a reckless and costly war.

"We have called upon both the government of President Assad as well as Syrian National Council and her allied groups to immediately begin negotiations, under Arab League supervision, to end this conflict.

"In order to peacefully strike at the war making potential of the belligerents, the Arab League has called for the non-importation of military arms into Syria. In addition the league has recommended that all league members cease trading fossil fuels with nations, state and entities that attempt to obstruct with the peace process in Syria.

"Finally, the league has committed itself to guaranteeing the sovereignty and independence of the Syrian people. We have authorized that and I quote, 'military intervention by the sovereign states which comprise the Arab League be authorized, in defence of the Syrian people, should actors outside this region use armed force against Syria.'

"The Arab League will not tolerate nor accept the armed invasion by outside powers, to force upon the people of Syria a government not of their own choosing. To that end the Arab League has authorized the defense of Syrian territory against all outside, armed aggression.

"We ask that the Security Council commit itself to a position of non-military intervention and that the Security Council with but not above the Arab League commits itself to providing a solution acceptable not only to the people of Syria but to her neighbors as well.

"The states of the Arab League have been compelled to such action by the growing number of refugees seeking peace beyond the conflict. The Jordanian Government estimates that over 500,000 Syrian nationals have taken refugee in Jordan and another 1,200,000 have taken refuge in the states that surround Syria. This is a humanitarian crisis which places a huge financial burden on the peoples of our states and the states of the Arab League refuse to be confined to the role of their caretakers when we should instead forge a solution that would see these refugees return to their homes.

"The Syrian Crisis is a matter that can only be solved through the action of regional actors. As a fellow Arab nation and by the ties that bind us together, both from a shared heritage and by treaty and statute, the members of the league are committed and obligated to leading any and all efforts to find a solution to the crisis that has gripped Syria for the last eighteen months."

Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations and the current President of the UNSC, offered a smile to the Jordanian delegate after his introduction to the debate had ended.

"Thank you, Mr. Ambassador," Churkin said. "The floor is open for contributions from the members of this Council."

As President, Churkin felt it was wise to hold his tongue with regards to Russia's position until the debate had gotten properly underway. The Arab League's resolution had caused some unease in Moscow, and Churkin was eager to tease out the steps that the League was hoping to take with regards to Syria.

"We are concerned with regards to the military guarantee," Wang Min began. "Military guarantees -- collective defense -- are very much a Cold War-esque ideology. If the Syrian regime's authority and ability to govern its border with Turkey were to be compromised, and if this region had suddenly become home to the PKK, we would create a 'perfect storm' type of situation. Turkish military intervention would have provoked an Arab League intervention, which would have in turn provoked a NATO intervention. The end result being that half the region would be going to war in defense of a terrorist organization.

"This is a complex situation. I am not necessarily convinced that the inclusion of a military guarantee for Syria has helped the matter -- on the contrary, I believe it has simply further complicated the situation on the ground.

"What was the Arab League's rationale for this decision?"

Sir Mark Lyall Grant was astounded to say the least..did the Arab League really send a representative to issue a threat, a casus belli, to the rest of the world? Surely they knew that they would not get a resolution past the Security Council to authorize the use of military force? He kept his thoughts to him self for the time being, waiting at least of the Americans to jump in. Their reaction to this will probably be interesting, to say the least, he thought. He kept Downing Street informed of developments still, although this would likely lead to nowhere.

H.E. Mohamed Loulichki rose to address the Chamber.

"We may indeed provoke a perfect storm, however should Syria decide to attack camps in Turkey where the 'rebels' are receiving training and arms then there is the potential for this to happen already. We must hope that Turkey demonstrates the restraint and respect for international law that Syria has shown regarding the harbouring of those who seek to initiate terror attacks against the state." Loulichki struggled to keep a straight face at the statement. You are right to point out that this is all very Cold War-esque but so is the proxy war that Syria has become. We in the Middle East played home to the proxy wars of the 'superpowers' for decades and we had hoped that those days were long gone."

"The Arab League would like to take responsibility for its own affairs, free of the persistent meddling from foreign forces. The United States came to Iraq to bring peace and stability and a decade on the violence continues and hundreds of thousands lay dead and many many more wounded. We do not want a repeat of this in Syria, or in any Arab state. Grant us this opportunity to prove that we can work in unity to solve our own problems and if we fail then we have achieved the same result that the international community would have."

"You in this Council have had three years to find a solution to this problem. You represent five of the largest economies in the world, five of the largest armed forces in the world and, as the Permanent Five, should set an example for the rest of us to aspire to. While the Arab League has sat idly by for three years also, we have faced much upheaval, but now we feel ready to act. "

"The Arab League acted in December of 2011," Wang pointed out. "The Syrian civil war is not a black-and-white affair. That is precisely why the problem has continued for as long as it has -- that is precisely why the Arab League took so long to switch gears from the ill-fated observer mission in 2011 to the fiercely defensive mission in 2013.

"My concern is simple: the Arab League is not actually solving the problem with this resolution. The commitment to moving forward to a solution is good, yes, but in so doing you have drawn a line in the sand. You have committed yourselves to the defense of Syria under any and all conditions. If my outlined fear comes to fruition, you will have placed the entirety of the Arab League in a war with NATO over the disposition of terrorists. Is that truly the kind of risk you are prepared to take?"

"We agree with the Chinese. We are proud to have strong partnerships with many Arab nations. This includes Jordan, but there are and have been many others. Even Syria, who has worked with us in the War on Terror prior to the civil war. But we also have guarantees to Turkey.

I simply cannot fathom how dividing a region into armed camps, which has otherwise been relatively free from serious inter-state conflict in recent years is a good idea. Especially when this is not being done to deter a crisis, but once the crisis has already erupted."

Rice also passed a note to the Jordanians, which read:

For your own sakes, the Arab league needs to reconsider its position. Arab countries which we support are often quite unpopular to our domestic audience. Setting a diplomatic Goldberg machine which could draw NATO into a war in the Arab world doesn't just make that domestic political situation worse, it forces us to reconsider things. This might lead to more than just Assad's fall in the region.

This won't end well.

H.E. Mohamed Loulichki

"We haven't committed ourselves to the defence of Syria, we have committed ourselves to defending the Syrian people from having a system of Government forced upon them that they may not necessarily wish for just to suit the agenda of some foreign power. Under the fear that you outlined, the Arab League would have been compelled to come to the aid of Syria under the Treaty of Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation of the League of Arab States had Syria not been expelled from the Arab League in any case which would have thrust us into a war with NATO. I must say I find it a touch troubling that defending a state from an offensive war waged by a NATO member is grounds for the invoking of Article V. This sets a dangerous precedent that NATO members can start wars and then call for assistance if they then come under attack. If a Baltic state attacked Russia would NATO defend the state that commenced offensive action?!"

"Your fear boils down to whether Turkey is prodded and pushed to invade Syria at which point Turkey becomes an offender and should rightly be repulsed from Syria by the joint forces of the Arab League. It should not be the place of Ankara, Washington, Beijing, Moscow or the Arab League to decide the future for Syria, it is up to the Syrian people. The League would not support a Syrian invasion of Turkey in the names of counter terrorism any more than we would anticipate these United Nations would endorse Turkey invading Syria. The overwhelming feeling I get from this debate is that intervention is inevitable and it may not be as simple as you had hoped."

"Give us a mandate of one year to bring the efforts of the Arab League to fruition after which time if you deem it necessary to plunge Syria into a cycle of violence you can't extract yourselves from as you saw fit to do with Afghanistan and Iraq then be our guest."

Loulichki turned to the American ambassador from the podium:

"We too cannot fathom how dividing a region into armed camps is a good idea, yet every year we see you pump billions of dollars into the coffers of Egypt and Israel to buy arms, you authorise massive arms sales to the Gulf states, send military hardware to the Chinese Taipei and Georgia under the noses of China and Russia. Perhaps Madame Rice, the United States should consider its own actions before condemning those of others."

"The level of hostility shown by Arab League delegates in these negotiations is disturbing and disproportionate to the concerns being raised by the other delegates," said the Spanish representative. "As the Chinese delegation has pointed out, this is the inherent danger of such stringent pacts. Any diplomatic action, even when it is all taken towards the same goal of protecting the Syrian people, now becomes an existential threat to every nation both in the region and in NATO. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and points to an inherent flaw within the Arab League plan as it is currently structured.

"I recommend that all delegates remember that they are all working towards the same end - protecting the Syrian people from abuse, either domestic or international."

Wang Min's jaw almost hit the floor after the Moroccan delegate reamed Rice. He must've gone stark raving mad. Here was a country that regularly celebrated its centuries-old alliance with America. "I am afraid that speaking in defense of the al-Assad government is not going to win you many friends in this hall," Wang said, casting a suspicious glance at the Americans. "Certain heads of state represented here on this council have already stated that the notion of the al-Assad government remaining in Syria is a non-starter -- three of the permanent members of this body have endorsed the Friends of Syria Group publicly, and I think we all know that the SNC will not suffer Assad's presence after the war. Thus the Arab League's plan essentially requires hoping beyond hope that those same persons who have previously stated their desire to physically remove President Assad do not, as the Americans would say, call your bluff.

"I also note that this council has gone to great lengths to cooperate with the Arab League thus far. At the Arab League's insistence, the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria was comprised of unarmed military observers. As a result of this stark lack of protection, we were forced to suspend operations in June because of escalating violence.

"Furthermore, I find this entire change both sudden and surprising. Of the entire Arab League, only Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen were absent from the Friends of Syria Group summit in February, April, and July of last year. This group essentially existed to give legitimacy to the SNC at the expense of the al-Assad government. Accordingly, every attendee was criticized by the Syrian state media outlet as being an 'enemy of Syria.' Yet now you tell us that the Arab League has issued a binding military guarantee to the same government it had expressed open contempt of not more than eight months ago.

"I previously asked a question, but I do not believe it has been satisfactorily answered. So I shall ask again: what has changed in Syria and the Arab League that has brought this abrupt transformation about?"

H.E. Mohamed Loulichki

Turning to the Spaniard, "Forgive me if I come across as hostile, this is just a subject in which it feels like your collective minds are already made up and we, the Arab pawns in your games must accept our fate. The protection of the Syrian people must take priority here and my Spanish colleague is correct. This is what we should be striving for, not squabbling over the potential that a NATO member might invade Syria."

Loulichki turned next to the Chinaman, "It is not a guarantee for the security of Mr Assad but for the security of the Syrian people. If the Syrians are subjected to Turkish occupation this scenario will descend into a bloodbath. The Syrians after all have not forgotten the massacres the Turks committed there a century ago, a two way struggle will descend into a four way fight as the Turks and Kurds enter the equation. There is also the issue of President Assad's decision to resort to his chemical arsenal to repel invaders."

"The havoc created when the United States blindly instituted its 'deba'athification' of Iraq will repeat itself if you attempt to remove Assad and his institutions. The League is confident that President Assad will honour the result of any election that can be overseen by international monitors. The first part of our Resolution calls on the SNC and its various factions to come together with the Assad Government to discuss the direction Syria will move in. Three of the Permanent members also recognise Kosovo as a state, should we all follow this example that if the majority of the P5 back something it is set in stone?"

[Just to go on record, since this is the second time I've seen it, "Chinaman" tends to call out the PC Police. It's best to avoid it. Wang would've probably lost his shit if you called him a Chinaman in dialogue rather than in narrator-speak.]

Wang Min was not exactly swayed by the Moroccan statements. The almost rabid fixation by the Moroccans upon Iraq was disconcerting. After all, it was the NATO policy of limited intervention that ultimately allowed the rebels in Libya to become the Libyan government. On the other hand, Romney was Romney and not exactly likely to do the 'fair and balanced' thing in Syria. The staunch defense of the fiat justitia, et pereat mundus policy remained disconcerting.

"I am merely concerned," Wang replied, "that the Arab League's pledge to defend Syria will be construed as a direct approval of the al-Assad government. After all, it is rather unlikely that a foreign power will intervene to squash the SNC -- it is far more likely that a foreign power would intervene to topple the current government. Do my colleagues on this council share my opinion on the matter?"

While waiting for a reply, Wang scribbled a message for the Russians.

(OOC: Yeah I figured he would. I was going to refer to him as 'Wang' but assumed I'd probably fall foul of the 'it's Min not Yang' thing.)

H.E. Mohamed Loulichki

"I understand your concerns, perhaps it is for the good that I have been able to clarify that this is in no way, shape or form an endorsement of the Assad regime. The Arab League wants to protect the Syrian people and the territorial integrity of Syria from those who may ultimately have ulterior motives."

Churkin read the Chinese Ambassador's note with an expression which betrayed nothing. He then put pen to paper himself and passed along the note to Wang.

The Russian then decided to add his opinion to the ongoing debate.

"One concern that must be addressed is the fact that the Arab League itself is greatly divided. The Saudis and the Gulf Arab states are alleged to be funnelling weapons and money to the rebels. The Turks are providing safe havens for them. Others within the League are, for various reasons, opposed to the rebels and support the regime."

"How, then, can the Arab League properly look after the affairs of the Syrian people when one side is committed to a rebel victory and the other is committed to keeping Assad in power?"

"France seconds the Russian representative's question, and adds – given the repeated past failures to bring a solution to this crisis, does the Arab League believe it wise to essentially cut off all other input while, and possibly after, attempting to implement its own plan?"

This discussion had certainly taken an interesting, yet predictable turn, thought Sir Mark Lyall Grant.
"It would be wise for the Arab League to reconsider it's position. While you say that you are declaring your intent to defend the Syrian peoples right to determine their own future rather then having one imposed on them by a foreign power, you are leaving the door open. What is to say that elements within the Arab League will not consider any possible foreign intervention to remove Assad from power, as a threat against the Syrian people as well?

The lines here are not very clear. But what is clear, is the explosive nature of the position it has adopted."

A note was passed to the Arab League rep..
"The Foreign Office would be more then happy to hear from you, or another Arab League representative, to discuss Syria and issues surrounding it, to avoid any possible undesired outcomes. Indeed it would also be wise to meet with the Americans on these matters."

"The PKK is a terrorist group. What we are merely suggesting is that we cannot perfectly predict or determine who is the aggressor, who is the defender, where the threats really are. The fact of the matter is, you can't predict how these things turn out. And while you might be able to hide behind an ambivalent 'oh, we made a mistake' we have real responsibilities, with real consequences for the people involved. As such, a diplomatic mistake by the Arab league (which amongst some members paradoxically funnels arms to the rebels), which as we've pointed out, as have others, could turn extraordinarily ugly is going to have real consequences for our allies, ourselves, and foremost for the people on the ground, civilian or otherwise.

Even without setting a diplomatic trap, making guarantees to the Assad government is a questionable action.

In any event, I don't feel much need to debate American foreign policy with you."

"Somehow, I don't think Arab countries at this point in time want to rock the boat too much, while simultaneously undermining partnerships with key members of the international community. These kinds of matters are ones in which treading carefully can very much be rewarding. Especially when an active war is already ongoing.

This policy is simply unsatisfying on those grounds."

“The Arab League is asking for the UNSC to sign on as an equal partner in moving the negotiation process forward. We are not asking the permission of the UNSC to ‘invade’ or ‘occupy’ Syria with hostile, military force.

“It is troubling that certain members of this body are speaking of military intervention as being inevitable, the Arab League is certainly not calling for the armed invasion of Syria by the militaries of our member states. Rather, we have committed ourselves to the defending the people of Syria should aggression be undertaken against them. We will not lay any onerous prerequisites upon ourselves to exercise that duty which is ours by treaty and by common brotherhood.

“This is a duty that members of the Arab League already exercise. The Arab League, in particular my home nation of Jordan, hosts the vast majority of refugees fleeing from the fighting in Syria. It has been the Arab League that has taken steps to care for these victims. It has been the Arab League that has stepped in to disarm ‘refugees’ wishing to use foreign soil to base hostile operations in Syria. It has been the Arab League that has been making effective and concrete preparations to prevent chemical weapons stolen from Syrian arsenals from getting into the hands of enemies of the world. We have collectively shouldered the burden as ambassadors from various North American, European and Asian states have shuttled around the world’s capitals to determine the fate of Syria and her people, without consulting those who call Syria their fatherland.

“We have been looking after the affairs of the Syrian people for well-over eighteen months. We will continue to look to the well-being of our Syrian brothers well into the future.

“I believe that everyone shares a natural reluctance to move militarily into Syria to solve the crisis. It is not the wish of the league nor, we assume, it is the wish of the Turkish Government. After all, this august body would never dare apply a double-standard of whom it would sanction to militarily intervene in Syria, yes?”

A note is passed to the Americans: Barring the invasion of a NATO member, why would NATO be dragged into this quagmire? If Turkish troops cross the border into Syria, sanctioned by the UNSC or unsanctioned, the Arab League will act.

If America wishes to erase the taint of its support of the Likud-led government in Israel over the past few years, it can gain much respect, if not affection, by backing the position of the Arab League. Unless Assad invites us in or Turkey invades, you will not see our forces cross the border into Syria.

A note is passed to the British: This ought to be an easy victory for our bloc, if the West had more patience, we could easily turn Syria to our camp. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are united for the first time in many years on this issue, which alone is significant. While it’s an open secret that Egypt supports Assad, it may be moot as he will probably leave of his own accord.

Given our long-standing ties I’d like to broach the possibility of allowing British observers, discreetly of course, to be attached to Jordanian units deployed to the area of potential engagement. You can verify our actions for your government as well as that of the Americans; my government is sensitive to how our population would react to see Americans moving about our combat units.

Mark Lyall Grant was silently furious, how dare the Jordanian representative speak in such a tone and imply that Jordan is bearing the weight of the world in this crisis, when the only reason they have taken so many refugees is because they've flooded across the mutual border Jordan and Syria share. Had it been in west Africa, Syria would not lift a finger, he thought to him self.

"While members of the Arab League, Jordan in particular, may have taken on a great deal of the burden in regards to refugees, given they are neighbors with Syria, to imply that only the Arab League has taken an interest in the humanitarian crisis is absurd. Many members of the International community have provided aid and financial support through various means, without which Syria would have broken already under the immense pressure of the humanitarian crisis from the conflict in Syria."

"We are not speaking of military intervention as inevitable. Only that intervention has higher probability here than elsewhere thanks to the nature of the conflict, from any party, and thanks to irresponsible Arab policy, it has also heightened the risks for all those involved. Including Syrian civilians."

A retort was sent back to the Jordanians, who had been selected as the most vulnerable Arab party present to pressure:

Unless Assad invites us in is a little ominous. That worries, us too. And many have already made it quite clear how this could get out of hand. You are also in no position to use this as an opportunity to discuss Israel. Israel, unlike many Arab governments is relatively popular in the USA.

Open defiance of regional stability isn't going to make it any easier for us to stem the tide of public opinion, and that public opinion can spill over ... elsewhere.

If you can refrain from taking unwise shots at American policy, we would be willing to talk private alternatives, though. Plainly, the idea that the Arab league gives military guarantees to the Syrian state, and sets a diplomatic Ruby Goldberg machine in place isn't going over too well.

If you've got any ideas on how to make this all more palatable to us, we're all ears. Maybe we can help turn the tide against the Arab league in these halls and others?" We are, as always willing to work with Arab governments so long as they don't engage in resentment and are amenable to our interests.

For now, that door still stands open.

For two decades the House of Hashim had been pilloried for being too pro-Western. They had signed peace with Israel in 1994 when no other Arab states were willing to do so of their own accord. While King of Abdullah had indicated that he was not about to abandon his pro-Western stance, he had made it clear that he would not kowtow to any man in the matter of Syria.

It was right and proper for the House of Hashim to bask in the praise of all Arabs. After all, was it not his ancestors that set in motion the Great Arab Revolution, falsely called a ‘revolt’ by Eurocentric historians.

“The eyes of the Arab world are now watching the ambassador from the United Kingdom carefully. Did the august ambassador just claim that Europeans should be credited in the majority as the ‘saviors of Syria’? Is that not what you mean by this nebulous phrase, ‘international community’? The Arab League is not here before this body to receive marching orders. Rather, we are here to share our thoughts, inform the UNSC of what steps we have taken to solve this crisis and ask for the cooperation of the UNSC in bringing all parties in Syria to the negotiating table."

A note is passed to the Americans: The West can ill afford to offend the entire Arab League, the position taken by your government will not be popular with the Arab street.

Let me make it clear, if the United States wishes to push the Arab world into aligning ourselves with the Russians and Chinese—both nations having not so blatantly attacked the integrity of the Arab League in this forum—then it can continue on this current course of ‘it’s my way or the highway’.

Or is the United States forgetting that Russia has just established a military presence in Egypt’s premier port? Washington’s influence is slipping, now is not the time to make threats that we both know the American people will never back up so-soon after Iraq.

The Americans whispered quietly, so as not to disturb proceedings. The consensus was that any unsightly Arab resolution would meet the veto even if China, Russia, or the UK didn't, at least until Washington had more information, because, quite frankly, the Arabs seemed more content to bicker with benefactors than make a case for their cause. Thankfully, a mix of US intelligence and compliance of some of the more trustworthy American redoubts in the region promised information.

They didn't even bother to publicly rebuke the Jordanians further. It was quickly becoming clear that the people most adept at incriminating this Arab proposal were the Arab leaders themselves. Instead, they opted to pass another, more threatening note to the Jordanians. The Americans had offered to help privately circumvent opposition to the resolution. The Jordanians had repaid Rice and the contingent with scorn. That wouldn't do.

They were attempted to point out that at the moment the prickly Israelis were looking quite cuddly. Even the Obama administration's row with the Chinese looked, well, maybe not better, but not much worse, either. Even the suggestion that the Arabs weren't here to receive marching orders was quite frankly, ridiculous. That was what the UNSC did. The states with vetoes had all (except the silent French -- probably reading some existentialist tome somewhere) expressed concern, in varying degrees. And without a measure of support from at least one of the P5, the Arabs were fairly toothless, if things actually got sticky. Especially considering all of them were armed with goodwill from the United States.

If I recall correctly, the last Arab leader who counted on Arab unity to shield their volatile schemes was Saddam Hussein. Let's not do anything rash, here.

“We have spent more than enough time debating military actions that we have forgotten that peace is more than attainable through talks.

“While the Arab League will continue to earnestly make preparations to come to the defense of Syria if necessary, we would like to place the emphasis on peaceful negotiations. Speaking for Jordan and Jordan alone, we would be very amenable to this body passing a resolution renouncing military intervention into Syria by any body as a primary solution to this crisis, such a guarantee would do much to calm the situation in the Arab world.

“Moving the topic back to the original purpose of this discussion, negotiations, we propose Arab League-UNSC sponsored talks to be held in a neutral location, that is to say not in Riyadh, Cairo, Amman, Ankara, Moscow, Washington or any other location owned by a nation with a direct stake in the outcome of the Syrian crisis. Given its status as a member of the UNSC, its friendly relations with all parties concerned and its pointed, yet respectful questions towards the Arab League position, we suggest that such negotiations be hosted by the Chinese in Beijing.”

A note was sent to the Americans: Nuts.

The Americans read the note. An ironically laconic response. Well, maybe the Jordanians were cleverer than Rice had thought. Maybe.

Ambassador Rice immediately jumped into the fray, again:

"Firstly, we approve of holding talks in Beijing. While we don't agree that Beijing is a completely 'neutral' location -- in that all of the P5 members of this body hold a stake in the sanctity of mankind and a satisfactory resolution of some form or another to this unfortunate crisis, we are quite willing to admit that Beijing represents a less inflammatory option." She stopped, but for a moment, to let that sink in. Then, again:

"But ... any resolution renouncing military intervention under any and all terms will not pass this body. We would be far more amenable to a stipulation that allows NATO to act in accordance to Article 5, which binds all its members. NATO includes three of the five veto-wielding members of this body, ambassador. To ask three of those five to yield their decades-long commitments to the safety of Turkey and other members is unconscionable.

Because of the relatively high, but not anywhere near inevitable likelihood of a NATO member being dragged in, such an exception would have to be granted before such a resolution would be possible.

Is this possible, or should your proposal be committed to the flames?"