Will Russia discuss Syria? It appears so.

Kofi Annan, international mediator, aims to arrange a meeting to discuss the Syrian conflict. U.S. officials say, "there are still hurdles to be overcome."

AP Photo/RIA-Novosti, Alexei Druzhinin, Presidential Press Service
Russian President Vladimir Putin, second left, and Jordan's King Abdullah II, second right, seen during their meeting in Amman, Jordan. Jordan's King Abdullah II reiterated support for finding a political solution to address the crisis in Syria. Russia will attend a meeting to discuss the crisis next weekend.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will attend a meeting on the escalating conflict in Syria that international mediator Kofi Annan is attempting to organize in Geneva this weekend, Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said on Tuesday.

"Sergei Lavrov has officially accepted the invitation to come to the actual meeting in Geneva on Saturday, June 30," Churkin told reporters ahead of a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Syria. "We attach great importance to this meeting."

U.S. officials traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who flew to Finland on Tuesday starting a three-nation tour that will see her meet with Lavrov on Friday in St. Petersburg, said no decision had yet been made on her attendance.

"The sticking point is a clear agreement that there needs to be political transition," one senior U.S. official told reporters on board Clinton's plane, repeating U.S. opposition to Annan's proposal that Iran be included in any such talks.

"We don't think Iran has been a constructive player on this issue," the official said. "Nothing has changed in that position."

Annan's deputy, Nasser al-Kidwa, was briefing the 15-nation council by video-link on Annan's attempts to prevent the total collapse of his moribund six-point peace plan.

Diplomats said it was not entirely clear that the meeting of the five permanent Security Council members and key regional players scheduled for Saturday will take place. Annan has said that Iran should attend, but diplomats say the United States, Saudi Arabia and others dislike that idea.

Several Western diplomats said there was no agreement on what the value of the meeting would be. But Churkin made clear that Moscow expected the Saturday meeting to go ahead.

"I hope other planned participants are going to be there as well," Churkin said. "We hope it can provide powerful impetus for political efforts to put an end to the conflict."

Reference to Iran? 

So far Annan's attempts to get the opposition and government to begin a dialogue aimed at ending the 16-month conflict have failed. Annan has said that a "contact group" of the permanent council members and regional players could pressure the Syrian government and opposition to begin political negotiations.

One diplomat inside the council chamber told Reuters that Kidwa said "it's essential states with influence agree themselves on principles and guidelines to support a Syrian-led political transition."

He added that Kidwa said an "agreement on principles and scope of participation" - possibly a reference to whether Iran should take part - would be needed before the June 30 meeting could go ahead.

So far, envoys said, there is no such agreement among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

The U.S. official, briefing reporters with Clinton, indicated there were still hurdles to overcome, saying the meeting needed clear agreement that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should make way for a political transition.

"If Kofi Annan can get the proposed participants to agree on such a plan for political transition then there will be a meeting. But that's what we need to find out before we go to any meeting. There's no point in going just for the sake of it," the official said.

Russia, joined by China, has thus far used its Security Council veto to block Western- and Arab-backed moves for tougher U.N. action on Damascus, which has long been a key regional Russian ally and an important market for Russian arms.

(Reporting By Michelle Nichols and Louis Charbonneau; additional reporting by Andrew Quinn in Helsinki; Editing by Vicki Allen and Xavier Briand)

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

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.