 |
| From top clockwise: The Kerrys and Assads at Naranj restaurant in Damascus in 2009 and Kerry with Lavrov and Moaz |
A Syrian journalist today tells U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry to first sit with his chum Bashar al-Assad to test the water before
asking the Syrian opposition to come to the table to negotiate a transition.
Kerry told reporters Tuesday, “The world wants to stop the killing (in
Syria). And we want to be able to see Assad and the Syrian opposition come to
the table for the creation of a transitional government according to the
framework that was created in Geneva, the Geneva
Protocol, which requires mutual consent on both sides to the formation of
that transitional government. That’s what we’re pushing for…” (See yesterday’s post, “Big
Powers seeking table partners for Moaz”)
His remarks shocked much of the
regional press.
Syria’s state-run media senses an
American volte-face in Assad’s favor. Champress,
for instance, declares ecstatically, “American body blow to the Turkish-Gulfite
alliance: Kerry wants President Assad and the opposition to sit at the negotiation
table.”
Likewise, Lebanese Hezbollah’s news
portal, al-Manar,
which reproduces the leader comment of pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi titled,
“America
retracts the call on Assad to step down.”
The Beirut daily al-Akhbar, which
speaks for both Assad and Hezbollah, shouts from the rooftops, “Washington follows Moscow: A
solution with Assad staying put.”
On the other side of the political
divide, the Saudi newspaper of records Asharq Alawsat sounds downbeat, with its
front-page banner announcing, “American
position veers towards a ‘dialogue’ between the opposition and Assad.”
Editorially, eminent Syrian author
and journalist Ghassan
al-Mufleh writes in an op-ed for Elaph that Kerry – not the
opposition -- should be the one to open the discourse with Assad.
Mufleh’s argument:
The U.S.
secretary of state’s personal connection with the Assad family goes back more
than two decades. It strengthened after the Syrian army’s exit from Lebanon in
2005.
Sen. Kerry was the
main driving force in talks (1) to extricate the Assad clique from the clutches
of the Special Tribunal for
Lebanon (STL) mandated to identify and try those responsible for the
assassination of Rafik Hariri, and (2) to then rehabilitate the clique.
I wrote about
this at the time.
And when John
Kerry was first nominated to the position of secretary of state, I wrote that the
central reason for handing him the job is his familiarity with the Syria File and
his personal relationship with the Assad clique. I also warned against the clique’s
international exoneration as it still enjoyed a measure of international cover.
I also cited the
Sudanese example, and how Omar
al-Bashir is walking free after the International Criminal Court issued a
warrant for his arrest on charges of crimes against humanity. The price for his
reprieve was the creation of the Republic of South Sudan and
the South
Sudan’s Chinese oil puzzle.
John Kerry did
not take long to avow his wish to tackle the Syria File as the principal
representative of the Israel-condoned Assad clique.
Incidentally, Kerry
is also in favor of rehabilitating the Iranian regime and preserving its
Mullahs at the helm. The Iranian opposition can thus expect to come under U.S.
pressure as well.
The aforesaid is
in keeping with the strategy of President Barack Obama’s inner circle.
(Remember how the White House vetoed last year’s plan -- backed by
Panetta-Dempsey-Clinton-Petraeus -- to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels).
Bypassing the
Obama-Kerry plan taking shape is the responsibility of the Syrian opposition
and revolutionary forces.
But not to sound
totally negative, the U.S. secretary of state can head to Damascus for a
dialogue with the Assad clique before implicating the Syrian opposition in the
game of the clique’s rehabilitation.
The follow-on
would be a UN Security Council resolution, based on the Geneva framework,
ordering the Assad clique to stop the killings. The opposition can follow suit.
If the U.S. and Russia are in tune, what can prevent the UN Security Council
passing a resolution calling for dialogue and a peaceful political transition following
the cessation of violence as demanded in Geneva?”
Let Kerry
kickoff a firsthand dialogue.
Should he fail,
he would bear sole responsibility for the step without the Syrian Revolution
bearing its consequences.
