 |
| Illustration by Syrian artist Wissam Al Jazairy |
“The
West, for the first time in history, is colluding with the East to slay a
population striving for freedom and dignity,” says Nizar al-Haraki, the “New
Syria” ambassador to Qatar.
Haraki, who hails from Deraa, cradle of the Syrian
uprising, and who was appointed to his post earlier this year by the Syrian
Opposition Coalition, was reacting to the plan agreed by U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for an international
conference on Syria.
The
idea is to bring the Damascus government and the Syrian opposition to the
negotiating table to agree a transitional government based on
the June
2012 Geneva Declaration.
Two
leading Arab political analysts today shoot down the plan.
One
says it exposes “Obama’s betrayal of the Syrian people”; the other describes it
as “a recipe for war.”
London-based
Lebanese political analyst Iyad Abu Shakra, who specialized in Middle Eastern
Studies at The University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies
(SOAS), writes
for Saudi Arabia’s pan-Arab daily Asharq
Alawsat:
Clearly,
the priorities of Syria’s insurgents don’t tally with the main concerns of the
U.S. president and British prime minister.
The
Syrian worry is a population left with over 100,000 deaths and seven million
refugees and internally displaced persons.
Since
human rights don’t shape the Big Powers’ Syria politics, the outcome of this
week’s U.S.-British summit came as no surprise.
It
does not take a genius to make out that U.S. President Barack Obama has caved
in and accepted Russia’s interpretation of the Geneva Declaration on Syria.
Washington
accepting to see Assad remain in office and complete his term in June 2014 is now
a fait accompli. It’s exactly what Moscow and Tehran want.
All
talk in previous months by both Obama and David Cameron of aiming to see “Syria
without Assad” was a whitewash. And their outcry over Jihadists, Takfiris and
fundamentalists joining the Syria war was timed, feigned and orchestrated to
cover up their shortsighted Syria policy that looks past the rights and
interests of the Syrian people.
Most
of these Jihadists, Takfiris and fundamentalists were first churned out by Assad
to fight at his behest in Lebanon and Iraq.
As
for Syria’s next-door neighbors, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
talked tough against Assad for months. This week, he said Turkey would remain levelheaded
in the face of provocations aimed at dragging it into what he called the
“Syrian quagmire.”
In
Lebanon a few months ago, Hezbollah was drawing a veil over its fighting against
the Syrian people alongside regime forces. Its non-Lebanese patrons have since directed
Hezbollah to overtly join the fray hook line and sinker.
Jordan,
the first country to evoke in years past the looming specter of the “Shiite
crescent,” is now struggling to cope with economic, political and security strains
caused by a flood of Syrian refugees “exported” by Assad.
The
bleak picture of happenings in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan – not to
mention Iraq – does not escape Washington for sure.
But
the Obama Administration’s political decision has been taken. The decision is to
give regime forces leeway on the field to improve Assad’s bargaining position and
to entrust Moscow and Tehran with management of the region’s affairs.
The
U.S. administration’s unqualified embrace of Moscow’s interpretation of the
Geneva declaration more than two years into the crisis is a bitter betrayal of
the Syrian people.
In
many ways, it mirrors President Obama’s betrayal of the Palestinian people after
the sugarcoated promises he made them during his first Middle East visit.
Abdurrahman
al-Rashed, Saudi Arabia’s media bigwig who heads Alarabiya TV news channel,
also writes
in part for Asharq Alawsat:
Washington’s
approval of the Russian plan is a big blunder. It gives hope to a regime under
siege.
Instead
of coming under amplified pressure, the regime is given a breather.
What’s
the worth of a conference that can’t force Assad to step down forthwith or stop
the revolution against him? This being unmistakably the case, the conference
will simply swell the two rival sides’ wrath and wear off popular support for
moderate forces. The winds and public mood will shift in the extremist
fighters’ favor.
Has
anyone asked: What would happen when the Russian side imposes the idea of a
partial regime exit, with Assad remaining at the helm until he completes his
term?
How
could millions of Syrians be coaxed to return to their homes and resume their normal
lives in a country run by oppressive security agencies?
Who
would trust Assad to keep his word and stand down in June 2014?
Who
says that once he leaves – if ever – he would take with him his inner circle,
which is responsible for the biggest massacres in the region’s history?
The
Americans have two options – either to stand by the overwhelming majority of
Syrians who detest Assad and refuse to live under his and his regime’s rule, or
to go away and leave the Syrians to themselves. Forcing the conference on them,
they believe, is meant to prop up Assad instead of showing him the door.
