Syrian opposition coalition likely to join Geneva-2

Kerry: “We’re not going to be fooled by Assad”

The Syrian National Coalition's logo

“Chances are the Syrian National Coalition will decide to join the Geneva-2 peace talks,” proclaims a front-page headline in the authoritative Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat this morning.

Pan-Arab al-Hayat, another Saudi-owned daily, talks of an American-Russian understanding that the priority at Geneva-2 would be “to set up a transitional governing body that would exercise full executive powers and supervise the armed forces and security services.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry hinted at this yesterday at his Joint Press Availability at the State Department’s Ben Franklin Room with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Antonio Meade.

SPOKESPERSON JEN PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: A question for Secretary Kerry. Sir, after you became Secretary of State, you made the point repeatedly that it was important to change Bashar al-Assad’s calculation in order to achieve a political solution at Geneva II. Now almost a year later, it’s clear that the Assad regime believes its position is stronger than ever. In his letter to the United Nations, the Syria foreign minister, who will be leading the delegation to Geneva-2, suggests that the purpose of going to Geneva is to fight terrorism, not discuss a political transition. In fact, he says some points in the invitation the Syrian Government received from the UN are “in conflict with the legal and political position of the state of Syria.”

Sir, my question is: How can you expect to make progress toward a political transition at Geneva-2 if the Assad government does not even accept the purpose of the conference, which is what its own letter suggests. Have you been in contact with the Syrian Government over the past 24 hours to obtain an assurance that it accepts the purpose of the meeting? And doesn’t the Syrian foreign minister’s letter mean that more pressure needs to be brought to bear on the Assad government in order to make political headway? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, Michael. Yesterday I addressed directly the revisionism of the Syrian regime in its effort to try to divert the purpose, which will not be successful. More than 30 nations are going to assemble, all of whom, thus far, and if there are more, will be and must be committed to the Geneva-1 communiqué. Now, you were with me in Paris the other day when Foreign Minister Lavrov stood up and reiterated that the purpose of this conference is the implementation of the Geneva-1 communiqué.

Nobody would have believed that Assad would have given up his chemical weapons. But he did. And the reason he did is that his patrons came to understand that he had to. And I believe, as we begin to get to Geneva, and begin to get into this process, that it will become clear that there is no political solution whatsoever if Assad is not discussing a transition and if he thinks he’s going to be part of that future. It’s not going to happen. The people who are the opponents of this regime will never, ever stop. There will be a low-grade insurgency at least, and worse, potentially even a civil war if it continues, because they will not stop.

Now we also are not out of options with respect to what we may be able to do to increase the pressure and further change the calculation. And I think we’ve made that clear to the Russian foreign minister and others, and nor are other players short of an ability to be able to have an impact here.

So I think they can bluster, they can protest, they can put out distortions. The bottom line is: We are going to Geneva to implement Geneva-1. And if Assad doesn’t do that, he will invite greater response in various ways from various people over a period of time. So I’m not particularly surprised that he is trying to divert this. He’s been doing this for months, trying to make himself the protector of Syria against extremists, when he himself has even been funding some of those extremists – even purposely ceding some territory to them in order to make them more of a problem so he can make the argument that he is somehow the protector against them. Nobody is going to be fooled. We’re not going to be fooled by this process.

So Foreign Minister Lavrov has stated: They are supporting the Geneva-1 communiqué and the government has to come and negotiate around the communiqué. And since Russia is one of the primary benefactors of the Assad regime, we believe the Russians have a high stake in helping to make certain that Assad understands exactly what the parameters of this negotiation are.

Assad tables Aleppo ceasefire and prisoner swap

Moallem and Lavrov after their joint press conference in Moscow today (Reuters)

Within 24 hours of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry slamming Syrian government efforts to change the focus of next week’s Geneva-2 peace talks, Damascus today handed over a plan for an Aleppo ceasefire and readied for a possible prisoner exchange with the opposition.

At the news conference held after his meeting today with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Mansion in Moscow, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Damascus is ready to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with opposition forces in the flashpoint city of Aleppo.

A list of rebel prisoners has also been drawn up in preparation for a proposed exchange of prisoners.



“Taking into account the role of the Russian Federation in halting the bloodshed in Syria and our relationship of trust, today I have given Minister Lavrov a ceasefire plan for the city of Aleppo,” Russia Today (RT) quoted Muallem as saying.

He asked Lavrov to coordinate with his contacts in the Syrian opposition in order to ensure the execution of the new plan, adding that if it is successful it could be implemented in other areas of the war-torn country.

“I really hope all sides will keep to the terms of the agreement. If this happens, then we can implement this plan in other cities.”

Addressing the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Syria, Muallem said the Syrian government is already working with the UN to deliver aid to “a number of regions.” However, the success of the humanitarian program depends on rebel fighters keeping to their pledge not to open fire on humanitarian convoys, he said.

Refuting claims the Syrian Army is bombing its own citizens, Muallem said such allegations “do not reflect the reality of the current situation.” He laid the blame at the feet of terrorist organizations that are being supported by international players.

“According to the constitution, the Syrian government is obligated to protect its citizens and public institutions in Syria. Terrorists and terror groups are responsible for these destructive acts,” said Muallem, adding: “These groups are growing in number because of outside support from known states.”

Lavrov echoed this opinion, describing as “irresponsible” accusations that Damascus is carrying out strikes on its own citizens. 
“In Syria, civilians are suffering on both sides, but it is totally irresponsible to accuse the government of purposely targeting civilians,” said Lavrov. “To make such accusations, serious proof is required.”

Both foreign ministers said opposition representation is absolutely essential for the success of the Geneva-2 talks, which are set to kick off next Monday. They believe the conference will pave the way for the creation of a transitional government to bring an end to the three-year conflict.

The Syrian National Coalition – the main political opposition umbrella organization – is meeting in Istanbul later today to decide whether it will attend the Geneva talks.

KERRY

In remarks to the press at the State Department’s Briefing Room yesterday, Thursday, Kerry said in part:

I know that many of you have been asking about some of the recent revisionism as to why the international community will be gathering in Montreux next week, so let me make it clear here today.

From the very moment that we announced the goal of holding the Geneva conference on Syria, we all agreed that the purpose was specifically and solely to implement the 2012 Geneva-1 communiqué. That purpose, that sole purpose, could not have been more clear at the time this was announced and it could not be more clear today. It has been reiterated in international statement after international statement that the parties have signed up to, and venue after venue, in resolution after resolution, including most recently in Paris last weekend when both the London 11 and the Russian Federation reaffirmed their commitment to that objective, the implementation of Geneva-1.

So for anyone seeking to rewrite this history or to muddy the waters, let me state one more time what Geneva-2 is about: It is about establishing a process essential to the formation of a transition government body – governing body with full executive powers established by mutual consent. That process – it is the only way to bring about an end to the civil war that has triggered one of the planet’s most severe humanitarian disasters and which has created the seeding grounds for extremism.

The Syrian people need to be able to determine the future of their country. Their voice must be heard. And any names put forward for leadership of Syria’s transition must, according to the terms of Geneva-1 and every one of the reiterations of that being the heart and soul of Geneva-2, those names must be agreed to by both the opposition and the regime. That is the very definition of mutual consent.

This means that any figure that is deemed unacceptable by either side, whether President Assad or a member of the opposition, cannot be a part of the future. The United Nations, the United States, Russia, and all the countries attending know what this conference is about. After all, that was the basis of the UN invitation sent individually to each country, a restatement of the purpose of implementing Geneva-1. And attendance by both sides and the parties can come only with their acceptance of the goals of the conference.

We too are deeply concerned about the rise of extremism. The world needs no reminder that Syria has become the magnet for jihadists and extremists. It is the strongest magnet for terror of any place today. So it defies logic to imagine that those whose brutality created this magnet, how they could ever lead Syria away from extremism and towards a better future is beyond any kind of logic or common sense.

And so on the eve of the Syrian Opposition Coalition general assembly meeting tomorrow (today, Friday) to decide whether to participate in Geneva in the peace conference, the United States, for these reasons, urges a positive vote. We do so knowing that the Geneva peace conference is not the end but rather the beginning, the launch of a process, a process that is the best opportunity for the opposition to achieve the goals of the Syrian people and the revolution, and a political solution to this terrible conflict that has taken many, many, many, too many lives.

We will continue to push in the meantime for vital access for humanitarian assistance. I talked yesterday with Russian Federation Foreign Minister Lavrov in an effort to push still harder for access to some areas where the regime played games with the convoys, taking them around a circuitous route instead of directly in the way that the opposition had arranged for and was willing to protect them in. It is important that there be no games played with this process.

We will also continue to fight for ceasefires where we could achieve them, and we will continue to fight for the exchange or release of captive journalists and aid workers and others in order to try to improve the climate for negotiations.

Now, obviously, none of this will be easy. Ending a war and stopping a slaughter never is easy. We believe, though, this is the only road that can lead to the place where the civilized world has joined together in an effort to lead the parties to a better outcome. And to the Syrian people, let me reiterate: The United States and the international community will continue to provide help and support, as we did yesterday in Kuwait, where we pledged $380 million of additional assistance in order to try to relieve the pain and suffering of the refugees.

We will continue to stand with the people of Syria writ large, all the people, in an effort to provide them with the dignity and the new Syria, which they are fighting for. Thank you.

Kerry gets potatoes of peace to Syria talks

Aleppo ceasefire, prisoner swaps and Ghouta aid mulled

Kerry presenting Lavrov with the two Idaho potatoes

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with two potatoes from Idaho before the beginning of their talks at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Paris.

Kerry said he and Lavrov had spoken to one another several weeks ago and planned to discuss Syria. Then the Secretary of State produced two potatoes from a big cardboard box and gave them to the Russian minister.

The Russian delegation responded later with an ushanka hat, an iconic relic of the Soviet era, complete with a red star, but colored cartoonish pink.

Kerry and Lavrov discussed the possibility of ceasefires in parts of Syria, Kerry said after the talks in Paris.

Lavrov said the two also discussed a possible willingness by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to open aid corridors.

"We talked today about the possibility of trying to encourage a ceasefire. Maybe a localized ceasefire in Aleppo," Kerry told the news conference after the talks with Lavrov, which were joined by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi a little later.

Lavrov said Damascus had indicated it might provide access for humanitarian aid to besieged areas. According to RT, he specifically cited the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta, where fighting traps 160,000 people.

"We await similar steps by the opposition," Lavrov said.

The United States is pushing for a series of confidence-building measures, including prisoner exchanges, in the Syria war in advance of Geneva-2, a planned peace conference in Switzerland on January 22.

Prisoner exchanges may be a simpler goal to achieve. Armed opposition forces are preparing lists of Syrian army soldiers and officials in their captivity, Kerry said. A similar preparation is underway in Damascus.

Achieving a total ceasefire would probably be unrealistic under the circumstances, but both the U.S. and Russia are suggesting a localized ceasefire such as in Aleppo, which would serve as a test for the readiness of both sides to curb violence.

Syria’s second largest city Aleppo has been a scene of intensive fighting in the past few weeks.

A third important step would be providing humanitarian access to Syrian regions most affected by the violence, particularly the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta. Lavrov is negotiating such a move with Damascus, Kerry said.

Another important issue discussed by the three negotiators deals with Iran’s participation in the conference. According to Brahimi, an invitation to the Swiss town of Montreux, where the gathering is to take place, has been sent to Tehran.

“Iran’s participation or otherwise is not a matter of ideology; it is a matter of common sense,” the envoy said.

Kerry said the U.S. supports Iran’s participation in the conference, but insists that Tehran endorses the peace roadmap agreed at the June 2012 Syria peace conference in Geneva.

“We hope that in the end the UN Secretary General will invite everyone, who has an impact on the real development of the situation,” Lavrov said.

Lakhdar Brahimi: “It’s very complicated”

International troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi today held talks in Damascus, the last leg of a Middle East tour to lobby for a Syria peace conference, dubbed Geneva-2.

I am personally of the opinion he will keep huffing and puffing well into 2014 without getting up the steep Geneva-2 hill.

According to the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012, the principal objective of the proposed peace conference is to set up by mutual consent a transitional governing body with “full executive powers.”

I will come back to the prospects of Geneva-2 in a subsequent blog.

But here are highlights of what Brahimi told the Paris-based weekly newsmagazine Jeune Afrique in a 3,000-word interview published on the day of his arrival in Damascus yesterday.

The interview is fittingly titled “Mission Impossible”:

Jeune Afrique: Didn’t the agreement between the Russians and Americans [to remove Syria’s chemical weapons] put Bashar al-Assad back on the saddle?

Lakhdar Brahimi: He was an outcast; he became a partner… Bashar was never put off his stride -- so there is no reason to think that.

JA: Do you think he seriously considers running for re-election in mid-2014?

LB: Many of those around him take his running for another term as an accomplished fact.

He deems it as his absolute right, but that he would come to a decision in due time. He is adamant about completing his current term.

What I proclaim aloud and to all Syrians is this: History teaches us that after a crisis like this, there is no turning back.

President Assad could therefore significantly contribute to the transition from the previous Syria -- which is that of his father and his own -- to what I call the New Syrian Republic.

JA: What about the Syrian opposition?

LB: They are to consider who could represent them [at the peace table]. This is one reason why it takes time. Some of them even feel they should stay away from Geneva.

It's very complicated!

In this type of situation, there are many camps. Armed and unarmed opposition, opposition based outside and inside [Syria], Islamists, seculars, etc... We must realize Geneva-2, unlike the conference held in 2012, is not an end in itself but the beginning.

We hope the opposition will manage to agree on a credible and representative delegation. We must not delude ourselves: the whole world won’t be represented. However, the carry-over of this process will include as many people as possible.

JA: If the powerful Islamist rebels choose to boycott Geneva, it will be a real problem...

LB: Probably, but mind you there are two sorts of Islamists: those interested in the quest for peace, and those in the orbit al-Qaeda – such as Jabhat al-Nusra, for example. The latter wish to bring down the regime; they are not fighting to build a New Syrian Republic, but to set up an Islamic state. So they don’t give a hoot about Geneva.

JA: Is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a reliable partner?

LB: Absolutely – we know each other well.

He was ambassador to the UN and is an outstanding professional. He is also extremely knowledgeable about the Middle East.

Where Syria is concerned, there is much talk about Moscow's influence and the Russians’ political relations with the regime.

The Russians have had a significant, longstanding and uninterrupted presence in Syria.

Everyone bears in mind the Russian officers who are out there, but there are chiefly a lot of engineers. Remember, there are nearly 20,000 Russian women in Syria married to Syrians.

The Russians know Syria very well. When [Tunisia’s  Zine al-Abidine]  Ben Ali, [Egypt’s Hosni] Mubarak and [Libya’s Muammar] Gaddafi fell, few thought Bashar would survive more than three months.

Only the Russians kept saying: "Careful -- this is not the case, we are familiar with the country, and we know how it works. Syria is more complicated. "

Some thought this was pretentious, that it was an unconditional expression of support for Bashar.

JA: Do you think Syria’s national fabric can still be patched up?

LB: Yes, I think so. What threatens Syria is not the country’s partition. I would be surprised if the Alawites really want to create some sort of a bunker in their small mountains. They know very well it won’t be viable.

The real danger threatening Syria is a kind of "Somalization," one which will be more sustainable and profound than what we’ve seen in Somalia so far.

JA: Does the idea of ​​a Shiite crescent fighting Sunnis across the Arab and Islamic worlds seem pertinent?

LB: Effectively, we do have a problem, which is far from being new. I remember discussing it with [the highest ranking Shiite religious leader in Iraq] Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani, when I was in Baghdad in 2004. I explained to him we might have on our hands a Shiite-Sunni problem stretching from Indonesia all the way to Morocco.

He answered me saying Iraq was not Pakistan, where internecine strife was rife. He was wrong... We're not yet at the stage of a general confrontation, although [Shiite-Sunni] tensions are numerous in Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan or Bahrain. But we must be vigilant because we’re not too far off.

JA: What role is Iran playing in the Syrian conflict today -- that of a facilitator or an obstacle?

LB: You know, from my point of view, everyone represents an obstacle... Seriously, I met the new president, Hassan Rouhani, and his minister of foreign affairs in New York.

Iran's position is clear: there is no military solution to this conflict; an entente must be reached between the government -- towards which the Iranians are very close -- and the opposition that will result in free elections supervised by the United Nations.

I’m under the impression they [Iranians] think Bashar would win the ballot hands down.

JA: From [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad to Rouhani, have you noticed a change in Tehran’s discourse and positions?

LB: On other issues, such as relations with the United States, certainly. But on the Syria crisis, no, absolutely not.

JA: What about Israel in all this?

LB: I feel that whatever the case, Israel is in a win-win situation. If Bashar goes, Syria will take a long time to stabilize. If Bashar stays, he will be broken-down. And if the internecine strife continues, it will be good for Israel... Moreover, chemical weapons were the only strategic weapons the Israelis feared. In short, Israel is in a win-win situation and I'm not sure the Arabs are aware of this...

Some FSA and SNC leaders equivocating on Latakia

Col. Mustafa Hashim (top right) being interviewed in Latakia province last night

I suspect something fishy is going on among Syrian opposition leaders.

Five days into the armed opposition’s spectacular advances on the mountains of the coastal province of Latakia, Bashar al-Assad’s heartland, bigwigs in the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Coalition (SNC) are believed to be lobbying for cessation of the campaign.

A comment today -- signed by the pseudonym “Sary Alsory” and carried on the SNC’s Facebook page – said: “Some Supreme Military Command and Coalition members revealed their ugly face and betrayal of the revolution and the nation by signing a document calling for a moratorium on the coastal campaign. We hope to publish the names of all signatories of the document.”

Interviewed live on air last night, the Latakia campaign’s field commander of the central western front, Col. Mustafa Hashim, said his men were being deliberately starved of arms and munitions.

“Our (western) front has not been treated on par with the other fronts since our (FSA) meeting in (the Turkish resort of) Antalya” last December, Col. Hashim told Melad Fadl, his interviewer from Aljazeera TV on the Latakia mountains.

The Antalya meeting organized the FSA into five fronts: the northern front (Aleppo and Idlib), the eastern front (Raqqa-Deir Ezzor and al-Hasakah), the western front (Hama-Latakia-Tartus), the central front (Homs-Rastan) and the southern front (Damascus-Dar al-Sweida).

Asked who was starving his western front of arms and munitions, Col. Hashim said cryptically: “The backer countries.

“The Unified Command apportions the military aid it receives. I voiced my objections at previous official meetings, saying I had my reservations about The Command unfairly arming one front at the expense of another. The coastal front has received very little.

“We have been hoarding arms and munitions and planning this offensive (since Antalya).

“The campaign we launched at 5 a.m. on August 4 is ongoing.  The regime’s army has not been able to advance a single meter anywhere. The offensive shall continue until Syria’s complete liberation.”

Reacting to Col. Hashim’s remarks, Egyptian military strategy analyst Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Safwat el-Zayyat told Aljazeera’s news anchor: “Had the armed opposition opened the western front earlier, it could have helped the other fronts immensely.

“The coastal front is the revolution’s success story of the year. It seems the man, Mustafa Hashim, fears being starved of weapons.

“The big question is: Are revolution backers shying away from killing (Assad’s) hopes of a safe haven in a rump coastal state? Are they trying to stave off a sectarian bloodbath (in the Alawite stronghold), which is the regime’s recruitment reservoir, now that mountain villagers have started fleeing to Latakia city?

“True, FSA and SNC leaders might be trying to stave off a sectarian bloodbath. But at the same time, they have to realize the battle for the coastline will force the regime’s hand to defend its last place of refuge, which would greatly reduce pressure on the opposition in Homs, Damascus, Deraa, Aleppo and elsewhere.”

Within 24 hours of the Latakia offensive kicking off, Khaled Yacoub Oweis wrote in a Reuters dispatch, “A senior opposition figure, who declined to be named, said the United States, a main backer of the Free Syrian Army, is against targeting Latakia, because it could spark revenge attacks by Alawites against its majority Sunni population and add to an already huge refugee problem.

“Diplomats say the coastal area and its mountain villages could be the scene of a bloodbath against the region's Alawite population if Islamist hardliners end up eventually gaining the upper hand in the conflict.”

In Washington yesterday, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told a press briefing former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford “is in Paris today and tomorrow. He’s meeting with members of the Syrian opposition to discuss the prospects of a Geneva conference.

“We remain committed to helping Syrians negotiate a political settlement along the lines of the June 2012 Geneva communiqué.

“In particular, Ambassador Ford is talking to them about the need for a unified opposition delegation headed by the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, which can strongly press the case for its vision of what a transition government – governing body should look like.”

Later in the day, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister said they were continuing to try to find common ground on Syria and other issues

“One thing I would emphasize is on Syria while Sergei and I do not always agree completely on responsibility for the bloodshed or on some of the ways forward, both of us and our countries agree that to avoid institutional collapse and descent into chaos, the ultimate answer is a negotiated political solution," Kerry said.

“Syria indeed is at the top of our agenda," Lavrov said through an interpreter. "The goal is the same we need to start a political process.”

However, Lavrov suggested the main cause for urgency in the Russian view is an influx of Islamic militant fighters into Syria.

“We need to stage Geneva-2 conference and in my view the most important task for Geneva-2 would be to honor the commitment of all G8 leaders...who called for the government and opposition to join efforts to fight terrorists and force them away from Syria,” the top Russian diplomat said. “Especially in light of assessments we've been hearing lately this is of course our top priority.”

Kerry: Geneva-2 on Syria in September possibly

Kerry trying a shawarma sandwich at an eatery in al-Bireh...

... followed by Nabulsi kenafeh (Photos are by AFP)

Geneva-2 on Syria – inshallah

Israel-Palestine peace talks – in a bit

Shawarma – yummy

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said today both the U.S. and Russia are seriously committed to having an international conference on Syria and setting up a transitional government to end the bloodshed.

But he acknowledged the conference might not be possible until August or later.

Kerry spoke outside the U.S. Embassy in Brunei after a 90-minute-plus meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of an Asian security summit.

The proposed conference, which Kerry and Lavrov had planned for end-May, is known as "Geneva-2" because it follows a Syria meeting in the Swiss city in June 2012.

The secretary of state flew in for the ASEAN summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, after failing to achieve a breakthrough in setting up peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders despite an intense four-day round of shuttle diplomacy. Yet he left Tel Aviv at the weekend with a lot of optimism and promised that he is close to progress.

He met separately a total of three times with Benyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas, spending a total of 13 hours talking to the Israeli prime minister and around seven to the Palestinian president.

Following one of his meetings with Abbas at the latter’s office in Ramallah, Kerry wandered the streets of the central West Bank city of al-Bireh, where he ate a shawarma sandwich and Nabulsi kenafeh at a local eatery.

Following are his remarks after meeting with Lavrov in Brunei today:

Hi, everybody. I thought the meeting I had with Secretary Lavrov merited saying a few words because I think it was constructive and very useful, and I think we both agreed with that. We discussed a wide range of issues, but we obviously focused mostly on the issue of Syria.

I did raise the issue of, obviously, [National Security Agency leaker Edward] Snowden, but that is not his portfolio. It’s being handled – nor is it mine directly because it’s being handled within the Justice Department. So it is fair to say that we didn’t discuss any substantive progress, but I certainly raised, from our point of view, how it fits within the context of our relationship. But again, not his portfolio, and so it wasn’t discussed in a way that he would be able to take any action on it, though I hope he will communicate the views that I expressed.

On Syria, we had a very in-depth conversation, and I thought it was important to note that Foreign Minister Lavrov believes, as I do, and as I think President Obama and President Putin believe, that there are two countries that can have the most significant difference on this question, and they are Russia and the United States. We agreed that we are both serious, more than serious – committed to the Geneva process, and we both agreed that our countries have an ability to be able to make a difference if we can pull together in that effort.

We made progress in talking through and building on some of the issues that were discussed in Geneva on June 25^th by our Under Secretary Wendy Sherman and by their deputy, Mr. Bogdanov, as well as Lakhdar Brahimi. We narrowed down some of the options with respect to the potential of that conference. We both agreed that that conference should happen sooner rather than later, though we have a 2+2 meeting between Russia and the United States in July, and obviously August is very difficult for Europeans and for others, so it may be somewhere thereafter, but that’s being talked about.

What is clear to me coming out of this meeting and what we both wanted to really ascertain from each other is the level of seriousness and the capacity to be able to do this. Geneva relies on – the next Geneva relies on the work of the first Geneva, which calls for a transitional government with a neutral environment, by mutual consent, with the full transfer of power.

Whether the Assad regime is doing better or whether the opposition is doing better is frankly not determinative of that outcome because the outcome requires a transition government. And that’s why it is valuable to try to get to Geneva.

So we will continue to push. There are still things that have to be worked out over the course of these next days, but Foreign Minister Lavrov and I felt that this meeting was a very useful meeting. It was constructive, it was conducted in a constructive way, and our objective remains the same; that is, to recognize the notion that there really isn’t a military victory per se in Syria that keeps Syria as a country, and number two that we have an obligation to try to work towards a peaceful resolution because a peaceful settlement is the best way to save the state of Syria and to minimize the destruction. That commitment remains a solid one between both of us.

So I’m not going to take questions now because I’ve got a group of people waiting and we have a very, very tight schedule to move out of here.

Israel to sit out Syria war and U.S. “late” to peace

Cooking Syria cartoon by hassanbleibel.com

Israeli deputy premier and defense minister says President Bashar al-Assad’s forces currently hold only 40 percent of Syria’s territory and have lost their grip on four neighborhoods in the capital Damascus.

Speaking at the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday, Moshe Yaalon characterized the fighting in Syria as having reached a stalemate, whereby neither side “knows how to handle the other side in order to achieve victory.”

He said Iran’s Lebanese militia Hezbollah is moving “its best troops” into combat in Syria, which has become a battleground between Shiites and Sunnis with each side "massacring the other."

Yaalon reiterated Israel’s policy not to interfere in the Syria war “so long as Israel’s own interests are not being hurt.”

What Israel does not want to see, he said, includes the transfer of advanced weapons, missiles, or chemical weapons from the Damascus government to Hezbollah or a heating up of the frontier and a spillover.

Yaalon confirmed Israel is operating a field hospital on the Syrian border and transferring severely wounded Syrian nationals to Israeli hospitals for treatment.

“Our policy is to help in humanitarian cases, and to that end we are operating a field hospital along the Syrian border,” he said. “In cases where there are badly wounded, we transfer them to Israeli hospitals. We have no intention of opening refugee camps.”

Yaalon began his security briefing with Syria, saying the country had become “a sparring ground for the superpowers.”

The S-300, a state-of-the-art Russian-made missile system, he said, had not yet been delivered to Syria and, if it is eventually transferred, “that will only happen in 2014.”

Oops

In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday the United States came "late" to efforts to end the war in Syria and is trying to prevent the total collapse of the country.

"This is a very difficult process, which we come to late," Kerry said at a news conference, speaking of a U.S.-Russian effort to bring the warring parties to a peace conference, known as Geneva-2, which might lead to a transitional government.

The State Department’s spokeswoman, Jennifer R. Psaki, said Kerry’s remarks had not been intended as a rebuke of the administration’s policy thus far. “It’s not an implied criticism of anyone — more just a recognition that more needs to be done and that’s what we’re focused on,” she said.

Kerry said he spoke with his Russian counterpart on Friday and Sergei Lavrov is "deeply committed" to supporting the conference, but added the situation in Qusayr "could put this kind of thing at risk."

The secretary of state made no mention of Russia having blocked last Saturday a 109-word UN Security Council statement on Qusayr that would have read:

The members of the Security Council express their grave concern about the situation in Qusayr, Syria, and in particular the impact on civilians of the ongoing fighting.

The members of the Security Council strongly call upon all sides to do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties and for the Syrian Government to exercise its responsibility to protect civilians.  They emphasize that those responsible for atrocities or other violations or abuses of applicable international law will be held accountable.

The members of the Security Council call upon the Syrian Government to allow immediate, full and unimpeded access to impartial humanitarian actors, including UN agencies, to reach civilians trapped in Qusayr.

But here is what Kerry did say regarding Syria at yesterday’s news conference with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski:

…With respect to the Turks and the process for Syria, let me just begin by saying that what is happening in Syria is happening because one man, who has been in power with his family for years now, more than 40 years, will not consent to an appropriate process by which the people of Syria can protect minorities, be inclusive, and have the people of Syria decide their future.

He has decided to protect himself and his regime’s interests by reaching out across state lines and actually soliciting the help of Iran on the ground with foreign fighters as well as Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. A designated terrorist organization has now crossed over from Lebanon into Syria and is actively engaged in the fighting.

President Assad is not unwilling to use Scuds against women and children and students and doctors and hospitals. He’s not unwilling to wreak havoc on individual citizens. And today in Qusayr, which is under siege by his forces and the surrogate forces, you have an extraordinary number of civilians who are trapped, and he will not allow the Red Cross and humanitarian aid to go in until the military has finished what it intends to do.

So I think the world is seeing the actions of a person who has lost touch with any reality except his own and who is willing to wreak any kind of punishment on his own – on the people of his country simply so that he can maintain power. And so this situation is obviously intolerable, unacceptable by any standard, and I think all civilized countries would call on the Assad regime to pull back from that and to engage in a legitimate peace process.

Now, with respect to that, I’m confident that Turkey will continue to be a critical player in this. I’m confident Turkey will reach out and resolve these questions. It’s not the first time any government has faced this kind of challenge. And I do expect Foreign Minister Davutoglu and the Prime Minister (Erdogan) to remain engaged in the effort to try to resolve what is happening in Syria.

With respect to Geneva-2, we all understand – I have said from day one – this is a very difficult process, which we come to late. We are trying to prevent the sectarian violence from dragging Syria down into a complete and total implosion, where it has broken up into enclaves and the institutions of the state have been destroyed, with God knows how many additional refugees and how many innocent people killed.

That’s why the effort to try to have an implementation of Geneva 1 take place at a conference. Now, when that ripens, when that becomes a reality is going to be decided by events on the ground and the participants themselves. The United States can push and cajole, and President Obama has instructed all of us to try to take every step possible to protect the people and to provide a venue for this dialogue to take place. But in the end, the people on the ground are going to have to decide that that’s something they’re prepared to engage in.

I spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov on Friday. We had a good conversation. He remains deeply committed to trying to make this conference happen, as do all of the support group of the people involved with the opposition. But I will say that the possibility of the transfer of S-300s, which will upset the balance of power with Israel as well as the prosecution of this lopsided military initiative in Qusayr and the trapping of civilians and the treatment of civilians, could put this kind of thing at risk. So we hope people will pull back and stay focused on the possibilities of implementing Geneva 1 and having a legitimate conference.

This week – tomorrow, in fact – Under Secretary Wendy Sherman will travel to Geneva. She will meet with Russian counterparts, and we will continue to lay the groundwork for the possibility of a negotiated resolution. And we will stay committed to that possibility notwithstanding the violence on the ground and the difficulties that we face.