Skip to footer

Diplomacy or military intervention in Syria? 7 opinions from around the globe.

Look to the Balkans war for guidance

  • By Whitney Eulich Staff writer

Bangkok Post (Thailand)
Op-Ed, former US assistant secretary of state for East Asia Christopher Hill
Syrian peacemakers needed

Many compare the situation in Syria to that of the Balkans war in the 1990s, but there are key differences, including the diplomatic process preceding intervention. During the Balkans war, representatives from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the US created a “Contact Group” after months of diplomacy to inform their plan and how it was carried out. But in Syria, only former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and select observers have played a role in the diplomatic process on-the-ground.

“What is really needed are serious and sustained negotiations among interested international powers ... on a viable political outcome.” The plan should be worked out with Mr. Annan, and should be abided to both publicly and privately.  “Clearly, a new way forward is needed, and a good start would be a political/diplomatic plan that Mr. Annan could sell to the [involved] parties.” But success in the Balkans was largely due to the support every country gave to the Contact Group plan: “The same unqualified support is what Mr. Annan – the best diplomat we have out there – needs and deserves.”

5 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.