Purported attempt to push back Geneva-2

From www. politico.com

The authoritative Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat says today the Syrian opposition umbrella organization, known as the Syrian National Coalition, is seeking to push back the Geneva-2 peace conference for Syria slated to be held in the Swiss resort of Montreux on January 22.

The paper quotes an SNC source as saying the alliance will be telling its Sunday meeting with the core group of the Friends of Syria – better known as the London 11 – it can only attend the Geneva-2 parley if the conditions set in the Geneva communiqué of June 2012 are met. Chiefly among them is the provision stating: “In all circumstances, the Government must allow immediate and full humanitarian access to humanitarian organizations to all areas affected by the fighting. The Government and all parties must enable the evacuation of the wounded, and all civilians who wish to leave to do so.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who accompanied President Francois Hollande on his second state visit to Saudi Arabia a fortnight ago, declared yesterday: “The opposition is right to demand that in parallel to Geneva-2, humanitarian corridors be established and the bombing cease.”

Speaking at a joint press briefing in Paris with his visiting Japanese counterpart, Fabius gave this insight into Geneva-2, translated by France Diplomatie:

Q.: Mr. Fabius, in three days’ time you will host an important meeting on Syria. You said just now that you have discussed this matter with your guests. At a time when the Syrian opposition is tearing itself apart -- they haven’t yet managed to accept or turn down the invitation to attend the Geneva-2 conference -- what can we expect from a conference in which the opposition may not participate?

Regarding Syria, the day before yesterday, I received the invitation from Mr. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, to the Geneva conference on January 22 which should take place as follows: On the first day, a meeting will take place in Montreux where we will set out our positions. Then on January 24, there will be a meeting between the Syrian delegations, in the presence of Mr. Brahimi.

Obviously, we support the holding of the Geneva-2 meeting, to the extent that we have always maintained from the outset that the solution be a political one. I would also like to say that if people had listened to France more carefully from the outset, then we probably wouldn’t be in the absolutely tragic situation that we’re in now.

I remember very clearly – it was one of the first times that I received many of my foreign colleagues, just after we took office – the major conference known as the Friends of Syria conference.

At the time we said that Mr. Bashar al-Assad, who UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described as having committed “crimes against humanity,” could not have a role in the future of Syria’s people.

The vision of the future should be built around the moderate opposition.

At the time, in July 2012, there was no Iranian or Hezbollah presence, and there were no terrorist movements. A specific action would have been enough to ensure that developments proceeded as desired but we weren’t heeded. The U.S. elections took place, there was dissent between different groups, and now we find ourselves with an absolutely tragic situation. Thousands of people die every month; there are appalling atrocities.

The number of deaths has now exceeded 130,000. There are millions of displaced persons, with tragic consequences, not just for Syria, a tormented country, but also for Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq.

We need a political solution to address this. In order to find this political solution, we have to engage in discussions – hence Geneva.

The letter that Mr. Ban Ki-moon sent us, which is very well written, states that the goal of the Geneva meeting is to create a transitional government with full executive powers, through discussions between the parties.

The goal of Geneva-2 is to meet, even if it’s not easy, in order to try and build a transitional government with full executive powers, not with Bashar al-Assad but with some elements of the regime and with the moderate opposition. It’s critical because if it doesn’t happen, Bashar al-Assad will say, “If you don’t want the terrorists, support me,” and the terrorists will say, “if you don’t want Bashar al-Assad, support the terrorists.”

We don’t support Mr. Bashar al-Assad, who is guilty of crimes against humanity, or the terrorists. We have to find a solution through dialogue. It’s true that the situation of our moderate opposition coalition friends isn’t easy.

They have to fight on two fronts: on the one hand, there’s Mr. Bashar al-Assad, supported by the Iranians and the Russians; and on the other hand, the terrorist movements. That’s why we’re going to have a meeting on Sunday involving the 11 countries that make up the so-called “Core Group” in the presence of Mr. Ahmad al-Jarba who has just been re-elected as president of the moderate opposition and we will discuss the situation. The moderate opposition will meet again on January 17, following our meeting in Paris.

This is where we are. We believe Geneva-2 -- provided its mandate is fulfilled -- is necessary. We call on all parties to make an effort to participate in the conference, but in accordance with the mandate. If Geneva-2 takes place – as we hope it will – there will be a second difficulty, namely the need to achieve concrete results.

If we want a political solution, we have to talk to each other. At the same time – and this is a request that I reiterate to the international community – we must put an end to the atrocities, to the terrible bombing that’s taking place and address the humanitarian needs.

The opposition is right to demand that, in parallel to Geneva-2, humanitarian corridors be established and the bombing cease.

Can 'friends' keep Syrian National Coalition whole?

The Core Group of the Friends of Syria -- better known as the “London 11” -- will devote their Sunday, January 12, meeting in Paris to sweet-talk Syria’s opposition umbrella organization into attending the Geneva-2 conference.

Reporting today from the French capital for the Saudi newspaper of records Asharq Alawsat, Michel Abu Najm quotes official French sources as saying they are “aware of the threats facing the Syrian National Coalition’s future and are familiar with its sensitive position and the difficulty of choosing between participating or boycotting the Geneva-2 conference.”

Abu Najm also quotes opposition sources as confirming the National Council risks splintering into factions after more than half its 121 members served notice this week they would walk away if the Council opted to sit at the Syria peace table in the Swiss resort of Montreux on January 22 (see my previous post, “The Syrian National Coalition is on its last leg”).

The different factions in the National Coalition were unable to reach an agreement on participation at two days of talks in Istanbul this week and postponed a decision on the issue until January 17.

The Syrian National Council, the main 28-member group in the National Coalition, is threatening to boycott the peace talks unless it has assurances that President Bashar al-Assad will be forced to give up power.

The Syrian government has said it will attend the talks but that Assad's departure is not up for negotiation.

The 11-nation core group of the “Friends of Syria” consists of Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

A statement by the Quai d’Orsay says Sunday’s meeting of the London 11 in Paris “will be chaired by Laurent Fabius, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and will take place in the presence of a Syrian National Coalition delegation led by its recently re-elected president, Ahmad al-Jarba.

“This meeting will allow us to reaffirm our full support for the Syrian National Coalition and, in the run-up to the Geneva II conference, to reiterate our shared vision of a political transition addressing the Syrian people’s legitimate aspirations. The creation of a transitional government body with full executive powers is the central objective of the Geneva II conference.

“At a time when the regime’s headlong pursuit of repression against the people continues to aggravate the humanitarian situation, this ministerial meeting will signal our desire to provide increased help to the Syrian National Coalition and the Syrian people, particularly in the liberated areas.”

In context, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrote in part in his January 6 invitation letter to participants in the Geneva-2 conference:

…I am now convening the Geneva Conference on Syria, and am pleased to invite you to attend the high-level international meeting that will launch the Conference.

The Conference aims to assist the Syrian parties in ending the violence and achieving a comprehensive agreement for a political settlement, implementing fully the Geneva Communiqué, while preserving the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria. The Communiqué contains Principles and Guidelines for a Syrian-led transition. These set out a number of key steps, beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. As the Geneva Communiqué says, the public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security and intelligence services. All governmental institutions and state offices must perform according to professional and human rights standards, operating under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body.

The Geneva Conference on Syria will convene under my chairmanship, first in an international high-level format over one day at Montreux, Switzerland, on 22 January 2014, beginning at 9 a.m. Negotiations between the two Syrian parties, facilitated by the Joint Special Representative for Syria, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, will follow immediately in Geneva on 24 January 2014. Adjournments and subsequent meetings may take place in accordance with a work plan to be agreed. The high-level international meeting may resume its deliberations as required.

I am confident the international participants who gather in Montreux will offer meaningful support for constructive negotiations between the Syrian parties in Geneva. I am sure that all present will do their utmost to encourage the Syrian parties to reach a comprehensive settlement, fully implementing the Geneva Communiqué, within an accelerated time frame. In addition to participation in the high-level meeting, it may be necessary to call upon you to assist further as the negotiations between the Syrian parties progress.

In inviting the Syrian parties, I have reminded them that the Security Council has called on them to engage seriously and constructively at the Conference, and underscored that they should be broadly representative and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation. I have also reminded the Syrian parties that, consistent with the Geneva Communiqué as well as Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) and other relevant resolutions (Annex II), full and effective participation of women is essential.

I look forward to confirmation of attendance of your delegation, and the list of delegates and advisers, at your earliest convenience.

Confirmation of attendance will be taken as commitment to the aims of the Conference stated above, in accordance with the Geneva Communiqué, in particular the Principles and Guidelines for a Syrian-led Transition contained in it.

The Office of the Joint Special Representative will provide a technical information note in due course.

The conflict in Syria has raged for too long, and has imposed too many sacrifices on the people of Syria. The Government and all parties must allow immediate and full humanitarian access to all conflict-affected areas. The violence must be ended expeditiously. All attacks against civilians should cease. All parties must work to put an end to all terrorist acts. The Geneva Conference offers a unique avenue towards these ends. I am deeply grateful for your cooperation in this venture, to help ensure that peace can be restored and the transition foreseen in the Geneva Communiqué can be implemented in a way that fully meets the aspirations of the Syrian people…

The price of Obama’s leading from behind in Syria

The fall of the border town of Qusayr to the Syrian government, signs the military balance may be tipping in favor of President Bashar al-Assad, the entry of Lebanese Hezbollah fighters on his side, and the growing credence of reports of chemical weapons use by the regime have all triggered a re-evaluation of Washington's Syria policy.

The Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland next Monday and Tuesday will give U.S. President Barack Obama a chance to discuss Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin and could influence his decision to arm the rebels or do something else to support them.

The United States and Russia announced on May 7 they would try to bring the warring parties to a Geneva-2 conference to implement a peace plan they endorsed a year ago that left open the question of whether or not Assad must leave power.

With the fall of Qusayr brought about by Syrian government forces and fighters from Iran's Lebanese Hezbollah militia, Assad seems to be gaining the upper hand on the battlefield, raising a serious question of why he would agree to any peace deal entailing his departure.

In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of States John Kerry told a joint press conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague:

Together, our two countries also remain committed to a Syrian-led political solution to the crisis there. We are deeply concerned about the dire situation in Syria, including the involvement of Hezbollah, as well as Iran, across state lines in another country. So we are focusing our efforts now on doing all that we can to support the opposition as they work to change the balance on the ground. And together, we have provided tremendous humanitarian assistance in an effort to mitigate the human suffering that is taking place in Syria. We remain committed to the Geneva 2 conference. We both understand the complications with the situation on the ground and moving forward rapidly. But there will have to be a political solution, ultimately, to the situation on the ground, and that is the framework that will continue to be the outline, and we remain committed to it.

QUESTION (from Jill Dougherty of CNN): ... After this catastrophic defeat for the opposition in Qusayr, do you still believe they can win and do it without the weapons they are asking for?

KERRY: Look, I think that nobody wins in Syria the way things are going; the people lose, and Syria as a country loses. And what we have been pushing for, all of us involved in this effort, is a political solution that ends the violence, saves Syria, stops the killing and destruction of an entire nation. And that’s what we’re pushing for. So it’s not a question to me whether or not the opposition can, quote, “win.” It’s a question of whether or not we can get to this political solution.

And the political solution that the Russians have agreed to contemplates a transition government. The implementation of Geneva-1 is the goal of Geneva-2, and that is a transition government with full executive authority, which gives the Syrian people as a whole, everybody in Syria, the chance to have a new beginning where they choose their future leadership. Now, that’s the goal.

And we have said that we will do everything we can and we’re able to do to help the opposition be able to achieve that goal and to reach a point where that can be implemented. And that’s what we’re trying to do. And I think that there’s unanimity about the importance of trying to find a way to peace, not a way to war. Now, the Assad regime is making that very difficult.

We will be – as everybody knows and has written about, we’re meeting to talk about the various balances in this issue right now. And I have nothing to announce about that at this point, but clearly, the choice of weapons that he has engaged in across the board challenge anybody’s values and standards of human behavior. And we’re going to have to make judgments for ourselves about how we can help the opposition to be able to deal with that.

(...)

QUESTION (from Tom Whipple, The Times): We’ve heard you say similar things for 800 days about Syria.

KERRY: Well, not me. I haven’t been in office for 800 days.

QUESTION: Officials like yourself, sir. Can you say – can you give us a sense, any sense at all, what you’ve been talking about in terms of the kind of help you may be offering the Syrian rebels, and why you aren’t able to say anything more than you’re saying at the moment, which you’re staying pretty tight-lipped about what you’ve been discussing in terms of this help you can give the rebels? At some point, it’s going to be too late for that, isn’t it? Do you think we’ve reached that point?

KERRY: I’m not going to make judgments about the points, where we are or aren’t. I’ll just say to you that as I said to you, we are determined to do everything that we can in order to help the opposition to be able to reach – to save Syria. And that stands. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. I have nothing new to announce today. When and if I do, you’ll hear about it. But at this moment, we are in consideration, as everybody knows – it’s been written about this week. People are talking about what further options might be exercised here. And we certainly had some discussion about that, obviously. But we don’t have anything to announce at this moment.

In his think piece today for the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat, Lebanese political analyst Abdelwahhab Badrakhan says in part:

While both the regime and the opposition have allies, fact is regime partners have proved dependable and committed.

By contrast, the opposition’s “friends” have led it to a blind alley.

Qusayr’s defenders gave their all. The regime and its mercenaries were an invasion unit.

The battle was between Syrians and an outside force alien to both Syria and Lebanon. The regime sent for it to regain control of the town.

“Control” in regime parlance means the cities, towns and townships should be in ruin and their residents hushed and subdued, as they were 27 months earlier.

Qusayr fell because its position on the map allowed the invaders to isolate it from its supportive surroundings.

Overstating its strategic importance as a gateway linking Damascus with the Syrian coastline recalls the regime’s hot air about “terrorists and armed gangs.”

It also lets slip Damascus bosses are no more interested in connecting with Aleppo, Idlib, Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Deraa. Their obsession is to secure a “safe escape route” to Syria’s Alawite heartland.

The most important aspect of the battle for Qusayr is that it allowed the Syrian and Iranian regimes and Hezbollah to set a model for external intervention and lay to wrest the “no winner or loser” equation between the sides.

The said equivalence was the raison d'être for Geneva-1 and the June 2012 Geneva Declaration.

The regime never accepted the Geneva Declaration, except slyly. The Russians and Iranians embraced it simply to promote the regime’s own interpretation of the document – namely, a political transition led by their ally Bashar al-Assad; otherwise no solution.

Occasional Russian statements feigning indifference to Assad’s fate were smokescreens. They have dissipated in the buildup for Geneva-2.

The worst and most dangerous fallout of the battle for Qusayr is the bitter feeling it leaves in the minds and hearts of Arab and Muslim public opinions – the feeling that the battle was: (1) the first sectarian conflict marking a Shiite victory against Sunnis (2) the foremost retaliation for the “poisoned chalice” Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to drink from in 1988 to end Iran’s eight-year war with “Saddam’s Iraq.”

Post-Qusayr, Syria and Iran’s regimes and Hezbollah are ecstatically toasting a “divine victory” against what they call a “conspiracy.”

The West and so-called “Friends of Syria,” for their part, proved ready to forfeit the Syrian people’s blood because their humble aspirations do not serve their interests.

The “victors” will not suffice with Qusayr ahead of Geneva-2, having known by now that the White House’s “red lines” are anything but red and Washington’s coaxing and flattery of Moscow will fall on deaf ears.

The “victors” are also conscious that Israel has numbed and shackled America’s Syria undertaking and is now flirting with the Kremlin, knowing that Moscow’s future role would serve her interests.

Israel is of the same mind as Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in preferring Assad and his regime to remain in place – much as it helped Iran poach Iraq and shares Tehran’s strategic designs to destabilize the Arab Gulf.

The Syrian people are not beaten, or down and out yet. But they could be if Washington kept playing second fiddle to Moscow on Syria.

The West’s appeasement of Iran

This is an edited translation of excerpts from the weekly think piece of leading American-Lebanese journalist Raghida Dergham for this morning’s edition of the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat:

The West’s ambiguous attitudes towards the Islamic Republic of Iran raise many questions.

For instance, is the collective objective of the United States, Britain and France to allow Iran to thwart a Syrian Opposition victory in Syria?

Or, is their shared aim to push Iran and Hezbollah deeper into the Syria quagmire?

The West is also out to lunch in the run-up to next month’s presidential election in Iran. It chose to get some shuteye when it was supposed to be exposing the establishment’s increasing dogmatism. That’s what the West did in Iran’s 10^th presidential election in 2009, before the reformist movement was crushed.

Unlike in 2009, when it encouraged Iran’s reformist movement, the West made nothing this week when the Guardian Council, a body of theologians and jurists, disqualified reformist ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani from running and approved only eight conservative candidates to stand for president.

In their on-off nuclear negotiations for a decade, the West continues to give Iran elbowroom to press ahead with its most contentious nuclear work. Here too, the West comes across as appeasing the Mullahs.

As to the regional role to which Tehran lays claim, the West seems content to play a double role. On the one hand, the West appears to give Iran free rein in the Arab countries it covets, chiefly Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

At the same time, Washington, London and Paris give the impression of being pleased to see Sunnis and Shiites crossing swords in Syria’s war of attrition, thus keeping both sides at bay from their cities.

Public acknowledgement of the presence of Iranian forces in Syria leaves the West in a quandary. A UN Security Council resolution (Resolution 1747 of 24 March 2007) bars arms exports by Iran under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

In paragraph 5 of the said resolution, the UN Security Council “Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel…”

Would the West be invoking the breach anytime soon?

The West explicitly warned Hezbollah recently against intervening militarily in Syria. And as a response to the group’s joining the war on the side of Assad’s regime, Europe is hinting it “might” designate Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist entity.

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted this week to pass a bill that will be highly unpopular in Moscow, let alone Damascus.

The “Syrian Transition Support Act” would provide arms to Syrian rebels in support of a regime change.

The bill heads first to the Senate, then to the House and finally to the president.

If the bill is passed, will President Barack Obama sign it?

So far, his policy has been to prevent a victory in Syria either by the armed opposition, which includes not more than five or 10 percent from Jabhat al-Nusra, or by the Iran-Hezbollah-Russia triumvirate.

As usual, Britain and France continue to warn on Syria, only to backtrack later. Both have been talking for months about arming the opposition, even at the cost of busting the European Union arms embargo, only to put their moves on hold afterward.

Are Britain and France acquiescing to the war of exhaustion and attrition in Syria, to help their intelligence services -- and the West generally – gather invaluable information on Sunni extremists belonging to al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and the likes?

By flying to Amman this week for the “Friends of Syria” core group meeting, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry looked more like Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s Geneva-2 salesman.

Whereas Washington was previously calling on Assad to stand down, the Amman closing statement simply said Assad “cannot play a role in the future of Syria.”

Russia wants Iran to be in Geneva-2. And the United States has yet to say no. All Washington said this week in a background briefing on Kerry’s trip to Amman was, “We’ll certainly have to talk to the Russians more, and we’ll have to talk also to the United Nations because they very well will have a big role. So the final attendance list is still under discussion.”

The now-defunct Soviet Union spent decades trying to reach the warm waters of the Mediterranean. Russia reached them via Tartus. Iran is already there via Hezbollah in Lebanon.

All these intertwined elements warrant a rethink. Talk of the Syria war being a quagmire or a Vietnam hemorrhaging Iran and Hezbollah is offset by whispers of a behind-the-scenes grand bargain whereby West and East hand Iran victory in her Vietnam war against Sunni extremists in Syria, plus a say in the regional balance of forces.