Praying for Witkoff on Ukraine, Gaza and Iran


The Guardian has less than perfect faith in Witkoff: "To solve three conflicts simultaneously would be a daunting task for anyone, but it is especially so for a man entirely new to diplomacy." Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour makes some important points in his article, but on the whole, I think Wintour is being rather unfair to Witkoff, Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu, and to the potential for peace and justice they represent. We should be doing everything in our power to help these four men succeed in their peacemaking efforts in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. 

There is no doubt that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of weakness relative to its April 2022 position in Istanbul. What exactly happened to the Istanbul talks? Did Boris Johnson scupper an agreement or not? The Guardian seems to be covering for Johnson:


Whether or not Boris Johnson is partly to blame, I think Wintour has to concede that Ukraine was in a better position in December of 2021 and in April of 2022 than it is now, and Trump is not the reason for the deterioration. The reason appears to be a belief shared by Zelensky and Biden that NATO could expand into Ukraine without turning a tragic civil war into a full-blown proxy war on a pathway to World War III. 

(NATO's assertion that it's "open-door policy" is somehow not expansionist may not withstand ICJ oral argument. Cf. NATO Enlargement and Article 10; NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive; and Irakli Kobakhidze | Wikipedia). 

Fortunately, Putin seems to be reaching for world peace on the far side of the Biden-Zelensky miscalculation (cf. Defending historical memory and security architecture: Putin’s key statements in Volgograd). Putin isn't demanding Finland's withdrawal from NATO, just Ukrainian and I assume Georgian neutrality with a pro-Russian cultural twist. That doesn't seem historically inappropriate or unjust. This said, we are a long way from the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.

I am not sure Trump should be signing a mineral deal with Ukraine that doesn't take past US assistance to Ukraine into account. This deal should be about the military assistance that America has provided to Ukraine under Biden and the diplomatic assistance that America is now providing to Ukraine under President Trump. If Ukraine demands reasonable security guarantees, maybe something can be nuanced. But If Zelensky is saying that Ukraine won't grant Americans access to Ukrainian mineral reserves unless Americans continue to support Kiev's NATO membership war with Russia, that is a problem. The status of Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia is another matter. But here Americans have to ask why Zelensky doesn't demand a contentious case between Ukraine and Russia at the ICJ to settle the territorial questions, as he should have from the beginning. I lean toward ICJ acceptance of the 2014 Crimea referendum, at least on a provisional basis; legal Russian occupation of additional Ukrainian territory under the terms of an interim peace plan; OSCE peacekeepers, humanitarians, and/or human rights monitors in the Russian occupied territories; and new referenda on Russian annexation of all Ukrainian territories beyond Crimea by 2035, unless the parties settle the matter peacefully otherwise beforehand, including through the ICJ. I don't agree to stationing of nuclear weapons in any part of Ukrainian territory annexed or occupied by Russia, with the possible exception of Russian naval access to Crimea.   

On Gaza, we are at day 572 of the hostage crisis and it's been a week since I published Sinai 2030. I note Qatar claims slight progress towards ceasefire in Gaza and share the following reactions:

  • If Hamas is indeed willing to return all hostages and to disarm in exchange for a total Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza as part of a five-year truce during which new tunnels will not be dug and Gaza will not be rearmed, I think Israel should make the deal.
  • I think Israel should be willing to recognize a demilitarized and deradicalized Palestinian state in Gaza if that is genuinely on the table, but I don't think Israel should give up on its vision of one Jewish state in Judea and Samaria as part of a post-October 7 deal with Hamas. The most Israel should be expected to recognize at this point is a demilitarized and deradicalized state of Palestine with its capital in Gaza.
  • If a new, deradicalized Hamas is willing to renounce its claims to Jerusalem and the West Bank, and to recognize that a legitimate democratic Jewish state of Israel may include these territories pursuant to final status negotiations, then perhaps Israel should be willing to recognize the new Hamas as the leadership of Gaza. Is that what Qatar and Türkiye expect? A best case scenario for the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza?
  • I know it may be unrealistic to leave the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza.

Concerning The Iran File, I note Iran’s foreign minister says next round of nuclear talks with U.S. will be held in Rome | PBS News and Iran to meet 3 European powers ahead of next nuclear talks with US | Reuters. I continue to pray for a nonproliferation, counterterrorism, human rights and sanctions relief breakthrough that works for all sides.

Comments

Post a Comment