Assad talks his fill to Russia Today

RT's Sophie Shevardnadze interviewing Assad in Damasccus

In an exclusive interview with RT (Russia Today), Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria is not going through a civil war, but rather a different kind of war – terrorism through proxies – involving either Syrians or foreign fighters from abroad.

Assad told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze the West creates enemy scapegoats – from communism to Islam to Saddam Hussein. He accused Western countries of aiming to create a new enemy embodied by him.

And while western media outlets report the crisis is solely between Assad and a Syrian opposition, the leader says that simply isn’t the case.

But in the case of a foreign invasion, Assad warned, the price would be more than the whole world could afford.

The Qs & As:

RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank very much for talking to us today.

Assad: You are most welcome in Damascus.

There are many people who were convinced a year ago that you would not make it this far. Here again you are sitting in a newly renovated presidential palace and recording this interview. Who exactly is your enemy at this point?

My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria. This is our enemy in Syria. It is not about the people, it is not about persons. The whole issue is not about me staying or leaving. It is about the country being safe or not. So, this is the enemy we have been fighting as Syria.

I have been here for the last two days and I had the chance to talk to a couple of people in Damascus. Some of them say that whether you stay or go at this point does not really matter anymore. What do you say about this?

I think for the president to stay or leave is a popular issue. It is related to the opinion of some people and the only way can be done through the ballot boxes. So, it is not about what we hear. It is about what we can get through that box and that box will tell any president to stay or leave very simply.

I think what they meant was that at this point you are not the target anymore; Syria is the target.

I was not the target; I was not the problem anyway. The West creates enemies; in the past it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar. That's why they say that the problem is the president, so he has to leave. That is why we have to focus of the real problem, not to waste our time listening to what they say.

Do you personally still believe that you are the only man who can hold Syria together and the only man who can put an end to what the world calls a ‘civil war’?

We have to look at it from two aspects. The first aspect is the constitution and I have my authority under the constitution. According to this authority and the constitution, I have to be able to solve the problem. But if we mean you do not have any other Syrian who can be a president, no -- any Syrian could be a president. We have many Syrians who are eligible to be in that position. You cannot always link the whole country only to one person.

But you are fighting for your country. Do you believe you are the man who can put an end to the conflict and restore peace?

I have to be the man who can do that and I hope so, but it is not about the power of the president; it is about the whole society. We have to be precise about this. The president cannot do anything without the institutions and without the support of the people. So, the fight now is not a president’s fight; it is Syrians’ fight. Every Syrian is involved in defending his country now.

It is and a lot of civilians are dying as well in the fighting. So, if you were to win this war, how would you reconcile with your people after everything that has happened?

Let’s be precise once again. The problem is not between the people and me; I do not have a problem with the people because the United States is against me and the West is against me and many other Arab countries, including Turkey, which is not Arab of course, are against me. If the Syrian people are against me, how can I be here?

They are not against you?

If the whole world, or let us say a big part of the world, including your people, are against you, are you a superman? You are just a human being. So, this is not logical. It is not about reconciling with the people and it is not about reconciliation between the Syrians and the Syrians; we do not have a civil war. It is about terrorism and the support coming from abroad to terrorists to destabilize Syria. This is our war.

Do you still not believe it is a civil war because I know there are a lot who think that there are terrorist acts which everyone believes take place in Syria, and there are also a lot of sectarian-based conflicts. For example, we all heard about the mother who has two sons; one son is fighting for the government forces and the other son is fighting for the rebel forces, how is this not a civil war?

You have divisions, but division does not mean civil war. It is completely different. Civil wars should be based on ethnic problems or sectarian problems. Sometimes you may have ethnic or sectarian tensions but this do not make them (a) problem. So, if you have division in the same family or in a bigger tribe or whatever or in the same city, it does not mean a civil war. This is completely different and that is normal. We should expect that.

When I asked about reconciling with your people, this is what I meant: I heard you say on many different occasions that the only thing you care about is what the Syrian people think of you and what Syrian people feel towards you and whether you should be a president or not. Are you not afraid that there has been so much damage done, for whatever reason, that at the end of the day Syrians won’t care about the truth; they will just blame you for the carnage that they have suffered?

This is a hypothetical question because what the people think is the right thing, and regarding what they think, we have to ask them. But I don’t have this information right now. So, I am not afraid about what some people think; I am afraid about my country. We have to be focused on that.

For years there have been so many stories about the almighty Syrian army, important and strong Syrian secret services, but then we see that, you know, the government forces are not able to crush the enemy like people expected it would, and we see terrorist attacks take place in the middle of Damascus almost every day. Were those myths about the Syrian army and about the strong Syrian secret services?

Usually, in normal circumstances when you have the army and the secret services and the intelligence, we focus on the external enemy even if we have an internal enemy, like terrorism, because the society is helping us at least not to provide terrorist’s incubator. Now in this case, it is a new kind of war -- terrorism through proxies, either Syrians living in Syria or foreign fighters coming from abroad. So, it is a new style of war, this is first and you have to adapt to this style and it takes time, it is not easy. And to say this is as easy as the normal or, let us say, the traditional or regular war, no, it is much more difficult. Second, the support that has been offered to those terrorists in every aspect, including armaments, money and political aspect is unprecedented. So, you have to expect that it is going to be a tough war and a difficult war. You do not expect a small country like Syria to defeat all those countries that have been fighting us through proxies just in days or weeks.

Yes, but when you look at it, I mean on one hand, you have one leader with an army, and he orders this army go straight, go left, go right and the army obeys. On the other hand, you have fractions of terrorists who are not unified and have no one unified strategy to fight you. So, how does that really happen when it comes to fighting each other?

This is not the problem. The problem is that those terrorists are fighting from within the cities, and in the cities you have civilians. When you fight this kind of terrorists, you have to be aware that you should do the minimum damage to the infrastructure and minimum damage to the civilians because you have civilians and you have to fight, you cannot leave terrorists just killing and destroying. So, this is the difficulty in this kind of war.

You know that the infrastructure and economy are suffering; it is almost as if Syria is going to fall into decay very soon and the time is against you. In your opinion, how much time do you need to crush the enemy?

You cannot answer this question because no one (has) the answer about when to end the war unless we have the answer to when they are going to stop smuggling foreign fighters from different parts of the world, especially the Middle East and the Islamic world, and when they are going to stop sending armaments to those terrorists. If they stop, this is when I can answer you; I can tell that in weeks we can finish everything. This is not a big problem. But as long as you have continuous supply (of) terrorists, armaments, logistics and everything else, it is going to be a long-term war.

Also, when you think about it, you have 4,000 km of loosely controlled borders, so you have your enemy that can at any time cross over into Jordan or Turkey to be rearmed, get medical care and come back to fight you!

No country in the world can seal the border. Sometime they use this word which is not correct, even the United Stated cannot seal its border with Mexico for example. The same can be applied to Russia, which is a big country. So, no country can seal the border. You can only have a better situation on the border when you have good relations with your neighbor and this is something we do not have at least with Turkey now. Turkey supports more than any other country the smuggling of terrorists and armaments.

Can I say to you something? I have been in Turkey recently and people there are actually very worried that a war will happen between Syria and Turkey. Do you think a war with Turkey is a realistic scenario?

Rationally, no I do not think so – for two reasons. The war needs public support and the majority of the Turkish people do not need this war. So, I do not think any rational official would think of going against the will of the public in his country and the same for the Syrian people. So, the conflict or difference is not between the Turkish people and the Syrian people; it is about the government and officials, it is between our officials and their officials because of their politics. So, I do not see any war between Syria and Turkey on the horizon.

When was the last time you spoke to Erdogan and how did the talk end?

May 2011, after he won the election.

So, you just congratulated him, and it was the last time

Yes and it was the last time.

Who is shelling Turkey? Is it the government forces or the rebels?

In order to find the answer, you need a joint committee between the two armies in order to know who shells who, because on the borders you have a lot of terrorists who have mortars; so, they can do the same. You have to go and investigate the bomb in that place itself and that did not happen. We asked the Turkish government to have this committee but they refused; so, you cannot have the answer. But when you have these terrorists on your borders, you do not exclude them from doing so because the Syrian army does not have any order to shell the Turkish land because we do not find any interest in this, and we do not have any enmity with the Turkish people. We consider them as brothers, so why do it; unless that happened by mistake, then it needs investigation.

Do you accept that it may be mistakenly from the government forces?

That could happen. This is a possibility and in every war you have mistakes. You know in Afghanistan, they always talk about friendly fire if you kill your soldier; this means that it could happen in every war, but we cannot say yes.

Why has Turkey, which you call a friendly nation, become a foothold for the opposition?

Not Turkey, but only Erdogan’s government in order to be precise. Turkish people need good relations with the Syrian people. Erdogan thinks that if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over in the region, and especially in Syria, he can guarantee his political future; this is one reason. The other reason, he personally thinks that he is the new sultan of the Ottoman and he can control the region as it was during the Ottoman Empire under a new umbrella. In his heart he thinks he is a caliph. These are the main two reasons for him to shift his policy from zero problems to zero friends.

But it is not just the West that opposes you at this point; there are so many enemies in the Arab world and that is to say like two years ago when someone heard you name in the Arab world they would straighten their ties, and now in the first occasion they betrayed you, why do you have so many enemies in the Arab world?

They are not enemies. The majority of Arab governments support Syria in their heart but they do not dare to say that explicitly.

Why not?

(Because they are) under pressure by the West (if not) the petrodollars in the Arab world.

Who supports you from the Arab world?

Many countries support Syria (in) their hearts but they do not dare to say that explicitly. First of all, Iraq which played a very active role in supporting Syria during the crisis because it is a neighboring country and they understand and recognize that if you have a war inside Syria you will have war in the neighboring countries, including Iraq. I think there are other countries that have a good position like Algeria, and Oman mainly; and there are other countries --  I would not count all of them now but I would say they have a positive position without taking actions.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, why are they so adamant about you resigning and how would an unstable Middle East fit their agenda?

Let’s be frank, I cannot answer on their behalf. They have to answer this question but I could say that the problem between Syria and many countries, whether in the Arab world or in the region or in the West, is that we kept saying no when we think that we have to say no, that is the problem. And some countries believe they can control Syria through orders, through money or petrodollars and this is impossible in Syria, this is the problem. May be they want to play a role. We do not have a problem, they can play a role whether they deserve this or not, they can play a role but not to play a role at the expense of our interests.

Is it about controlling Syria or about exporting their vision of Islam to Syria?

You cannot put it as a government policy sometimes. Sometimes you have institutions in a certain country, sometime you have persons who try to promote this but they do not announce it as an official policy. So, they did not ask us to promote their let’s say extremist attitude of their institutions but that happened in reality whether through indirect support of their government or through the foundation from institutions and personnel. So, this is part of the problem, but when I want to talk as a government, I have to talk about the announced policy. The announced policy is like any other policy; it is about the interest, it is about playing a role, but we cannot ignore what you mentioned.

Iran, which is a very close ally, also is exposed to economic sanctions, also facing a threat of military invasion. If you were faced with an option to cut ties with Iran in exchange for peace in your country, would you go for it?

We do not have contradicting options in this regard because we had good relations with Iran since 1979 till today, and it is getting better every day, but at the same time we are moving towards peace. We had a peace process and we had peace negotiations. Iran was not a factor against peace. So, this is misinformation they try to promote in the West that if we need peace, we do not have to have good relations with Iran. There is no (link); it is two completely different subjects. Iran supported Syria, supported our cause, the cause of the occupied land and we have to support them in their cause. This is very simple. Iran is a very important country in the region. If we are looking for stability, we need good relations with Iran. You cannot talk about stability while you have bad relations with Iran, Turkey and your neighbors and so on. This is it.

Do you have any information that the Western intelligence is financing rebel fighters here in Syria?

No, so far what we know is that they are offering the know-how support for the terrorists through Turkey and sometimes through Lebanon mainly. But there is other intelligence, not the Western, but the regional intelligence, which is very active and more active than the Western one under the supervision of the Western intelligence.

What is the role of al-Qaeda in Syria at this point? Are they controlling any of the rebel coalition forces?

No, I do not think they are looking to control; they are looking to create their own kingdoms or emirates in their language, but they mainly try now to scare the people through explosions, assassinations, suicide bombers and things like this to push the people towards desperation and to accept them as reality. So, they go step by step but their final aim is to have this, let’s say, Islamic Emirate in Syria where they can promote their own ideology in the rest of the world.

From those who are fighting you and those who are against you, who would you talk to?

We talk to anyone who has genuine will to help Syria, but we do not waste our time with anyone who wants to use our crisis for his own personal interests.

There has been many times… not you but the government forces have been accused many times of war crimes against your own civilians, do you accept that the government forces have committed war crimes against their own civilians?

We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people. Let’s go back to what happened in Russia more than a decade ago when you faced terrorism in Chechnya and other places; they attacked people in theaters and schools and so on, and the army in Russia protected the people, would you call it war crimes? No, you would not. Two days ago, Amnesty International recognized the crimes that were committed a few days ago by the armed groups when they captured soldiers and executed them. Also Human Rights Watch recognized this. Human Rights Watch recognized more than once the crimes of those terrorist groups and a few days ago it described these crimes as war crimes, this is the first point. The second point, if you have an army that committed a crime against its own people, this is devoid of logic because the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people. If you want to commit a crime against your people, then the army will divide, and will disintegrate. So, you cannot have a strong army while you are killing your people. Third, the army cannot withstand for 20 months in these difficult circumstances without having the embrace of the public in Syria. So, how could you have this embracement while you are killing your people? This is a contradiction. So, this is the answer.

When was the last time you spoke to a Western leader?

It was before the crisis.

Was there any time at which they try to give you conditions that if you left the post of presidency then there will be peace in Syria or no?

No, they did not propose it directly, no, but whether they propose that directly or indirectly, it is a matter of sovereignty; only the Syrian people will talk about this. Whoever talks about this in the media or in a statement directly or indirectly has no meaning and has no weight in Syria.

Do you even have a choice because from what it seems from the outside that would not have anywhere to go. Where would you go if you want to leave?

To Syria. I would go from Syria to Syria. This is the only place where we can live. I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country. I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.

Do you think that at this point there is any chance for diplomacy or talks or only the army can get it done?

I always believe in diplomacy and I always believe in dialogue even with those who do not understand or believe in it. We have to keep trying. I think that we will always achieve a partial success. We have to look for this partial success before we achieve the complete success. But we have to be realistic. You do not think that only dialogue can make you achieve something because those people who committed these acts they are of two kinds: one of them does not believe in dialogue, especially the extremists, and you have the outlaws who have been convicted by the court years ago before the crisis and their natural enemy is the government because they are going to be detained if we have a normal situation in Syria. The other part of them are the people who have been supplied by the outside, and they can only be committed to the governments that paid them the money and supplied them with the armament; they do not have a choice because they do not own their own decision. So, you have to be realistic. And you have the third part of the people whether militants or politicians who can accept the dialogue. That’s why we have been in this dialogue for months now even with militants and many of them gave up their armaments and they went back to their normal life.

Do you think a foreign invasion is imminent?

I think the price of this invasion if it happened is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.

Mr. President, do you blame yourself for anything?

Normally you have to find mistakes that you do with every decision otherwise you are not human.

What’s your biggest mistake?

I do not remember now to be frank. But I always, even before taking the decision, consider that part of it will be wrong; but you cannot tell about your mistakes now. Sometimes, especially during a crisis, you do not see what is right and what is wrong until you overcome the situation that you are in. I would not be objective to talk about mistakes now because we’re still in the middle of the crisis.

So, you do not have regrets yet?

Not now. When everything is clear, you can talk about your mistakes, and definitely you have mistakes and that is normal.

If today was March 15, 2011 – that’s when the protest started to escalate and grow -- what would you do differently?

I would do what I did on March 15.

Exactly the same?

Exactly the same: ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches; the umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time. May be on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical, you always take the decision on a strategic level, which is something different.

President Assad, how do you see yourself in 10 years’ time?

I see myself through my country; I cannot see myself but my country in 10 years’ time. This is where I can see myself.

Do you see yourself in Syria?

Definitely, I have to be in Syria. It is not about the position. I do not see myself whether a president or not. This is not my interest. I can see myself in this country as a safe country, stable country and more prosperous country.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank you for talking to RT.

Thank you for coming to Syria, again.

U.S. diplomats squash Syrian opposition hopes

Ambassador Ford

 On the day President Barack Obama won his second term, American diplomats told participants in the Syrian opposition “jamboree” in Doha there would be no change in the Obama policy of refusing to intervene militarily or arm the resistance.

Instead, they said, Washington would seek a “political solution” to the carnage in Syria.

The American diplomats were named as U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and A. Elizabeth Jones, a former Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs and one-time U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Samir Nashar, one of the Syrian National Council (SNC) members who attended the meeting with Ford and Jones tells today’s edition of the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, “They plainly said the United States does not envisage a solution in Syria other than the political solution.”

Nashar added, “When we told the two diplomats such an American position will ruin the reputation of the United States among Syrians, their answer was: ‘You need to relay this to the Syrians in dozes – that the United States won’t intervene in Syria and they have no choice other than a political solution.’

Elizabeth Jones

“…We reiterated that -- despite (U.S.) criticisms of the SNC – we remain committed first and foremost to the Syrian revolution’s path and objectives, which foreclose any political solution that does not commence with Bashar al-Assad standing down.”

Political analyst Rajeh el-Khoury, writing for the independent Lebanese daily an-Nahar, describes Obama 2 as just “a carbon copy” of Obama 1.

“Barack Obama is back and nothing will change. We have a carbon copy of the U.S. president who will probably be less interested in foreign policy issues in order to focus during his second term on what James A. Baker calls America’s Titanic load of debt,” Khoury says.

“Look at Obama’s wavering and elusive policies vis-à-vis (1) the Libyan revolution (2) change in Egypt, which is now causing Washington a splitting headache, and (3) the revolution in Syria, where massacres and calamities multiply because of Russia’s malign alignment with the regime and America turning a blind eye to the bloodbath and cruelly denying arms to regime opponents. If we pondered all this, we would conclude that Obama 2 could only be like Obama 1… So don’t expect U.S. policy change. You won’t see it anytime soon.”

Zuhair Qusaybati, writing for the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, notes that many regional states and politicians are pinning false hopes on Obama’s second term. Some see him arming the Syrian opposition adequately to overthrow the regime by year’s end, or warning to cut aid to Israel if it did not stop the building of settlements and the judaization of Jerusalem, or inviting Ali Khamenei to the White House to end the tug-of-war over Iran’s nuclear file and share spheres of influence in the ‘Shiite Crescent’ region.”

All this is wishful thinking, says Qusaybati, because the Obama administration’s “pullout from the region will from here on enter its second stage. So there is no good news on the way for the Syrians. Chances of the U.S. arming the opposition are low and the likelihood of military intervention is nil. Syria is abandoned to its fate. The balance of power will be decided on the ground -- at a prohibitive cost…”

U.S.-Russia back-room deal over Syria takes shape

Now that he’s won, after putting Syria on hold throughout his reelection campaign, U.S. President Barack Obama seems set to bungle the Syrian Revolution.

Instead of arming Syrian opposition rebels to topple President Bashar al-Assad, his administration is now hard-selling Russia’s roadmap for a Syrian-led political settlement.

The opening shots in the U.S.-Russian common approach to the Syria crisis came a week before Election Day, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Syrian National Council was dysfunctional.

Within days, the State Department was orchestrating the ongoing hullabaloo in Doha over a Syrian National Initiative (SNI) to replace the SNC (see my Nov. 3 post, U.S. push to overhaul Syrian opposition gains pace).

Almost at the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov flew to Cairo for talks with Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby and Syria troubleshooter Lakhdar Brahimi.

Lavrov told reporters at a post-talks press conference, “We decided what to do in Geneva. And it is incumbent upon us to move forwards on the basis of what was agreed upon in Geneva. And the players outside the region should coordinate and… in one direction. And Russia is doing just that. It is trying to execute what was agreed upon in Geneva.”

A more indicative sign Washington and Moscow have shaken hands on a Syria deal came yesterday from New York.

Warning Syria’s current path of violence will lead the country “to its destruction,” UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman -- who until last June was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State -- said there was an urgent need to “shift away” from the military logic driving the conflict and to move towards a political process.

“It has to be a Syrian-led process; it can’t be imposed,” Feltman told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York after he briefed a closed meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in the war-ravaged country.

“It must bring real change and a clean break from the past,” he added.

With that goal in mind, Feltman said, Brahimi was working with “great urgency,” mentioning that Brahimi’s deputy Nasser al-Kidwa was “monitoring” the Syrian opposition restructuring in Doha.

“The situation inside Syria is turning grimmer every day,” he told reporters, adding there was a growing risk the crisis could “explode outward into an already volatile region.”

“We might, in fact, already be seeing signs of this spillover,” Feltman said, referring to Syria-related violence in Turkey and Lebanon, and what he called “activities” in the Golan.

“We don’t think the fighting is directed at undermining the disengagement of forces agreement per se,” Feltman said in response to a question on the situation in Golan. “It is the Syrian-on-Syrian fighting. But, nevertheless, we are quite concerned about what the impact could be if there is not an immediate return to full compliance with that disengagement of forces agreement.”

Feltman flagged how Brahimi saw a June communiqué by the UN-backed Action Group on Syria as still providing an “important building block” for an eventual peace.

The Action Group is made up of the UN and Arab League chiefs; the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) as well as the Turkish foreign minister; the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy; and the foreign ministers of Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar, who are members of the Arab League ministerial committee on Syria.

At a meeting in Geneva last June 30, the Group had approved the “Geneva Declaration” -- a set of principles and guidelines for a Syrian-led transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people.

Among other proposed measures, the Geneva Declaration called on all parties to immediately recommit to a sustained cessation of armed violence in a bid to end the conflict, in addition to the establishment of a transitional governing body that would exercise full executive powers and would be made up of members of the Assad regime and the opposition and other groups (see full text of the Geneva Declaration in my June 30 post, Syria Action Group leaves open Assad question).

Syria today on Twitter

U.S. push to overhaul Syrian opposition gains pace

Clockwise from L.: Aref Dalila, Riad Hijab, Kamal Labwani, Riad Seif, Michel Kilo and Sadeq Jalal al-Azm

Muntaha Sultan al-Atrash (left), Razan Zaitouneh (top left), Fedaa Hourani (center) and Suhair Atassi (right)

The U.S.-sponsored drive to overhaul the Syrian opposition’s leadership is roller-coasting its way to a November 8 finale in Doha.

The drive aims to form a new opposition umbrella, called the Syrian National Initiative (SNI), to supplant the Syrian National Council (SNC).

Riad Seif, a former Syrian parliamentarian and dissident, developed the SNI blueprint.

The U.S. plan to change horses midstream were first revealed October 31 by Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin in his daily Web column The Cable (see my post of the same day, U.S. set to revisit Syria with ‘Riad Seif plan’).

Hours later, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the SNC should no longer be considered the “visible leader” of the opposition movement, that many of its members have not been back to Syria in “20, 30 or 40 years” and there must be a “representation of those who are on the frontlines fighting and dying today.”

The following day (Nov. 1), the State Department said it has identified individual Syrians who “show leadership” and is “bringing them to the attention” of opposition members who will gather November 7 in Doha.

“This is primarily political leadership -- people who cannot only organize, but provide services. Because what this really is about is the day after, and the day will come when Assad falls -- and there needs to be in place structures that can provide governance and services to the people,” said Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy State Department spokesman.

The focus, the official said, is on people with political and administrative skills, not military skills. Although some of them, he said, may have fought against the government as part of the opposition.

Ventrell directly criticized the SNC, saying that “after many months, (it) has not succeeded in broadening its leadership -- not to more insiders, not ethnically and not geographically. Meanwhile, we and our Friends of the Syrian people, have encountered individuals who have already displayed leadership and want to be part of Syria's future.”

The United States is anxious to avoid looking as if it is orchestrating the Doha opposition conference. Ventrell said Ambassador Robert Ford and his team will be there "on the sidelines" of the meeting.

“We are bringing these people to the attention of the Doha participants,” he said. “We’re not choosing anyone. Only the Syrian people can do that. Helping bring attention to a broader pool of candidates for the Syrian people to consider for potential leadership.”

Twenty-four hours later, Riad Seif was in Amman for consultations on the proposed SNI with about 25 Syrian dissidents and activists. Involved in the huddle were former Premier Riad Hijab, the former head of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood Ali Sadreddin al-Bayanouni, Kamal al-Labwani and Suhair Atassi.

SNI blueprint

Seif outlined the blueprint for the SNI in Arabic. The Carnegie think-tank promptly offered this translation of the document, “given its importance for Syria and U.S. policy”:

The current situation impresses upon us the need to form a leadership framework that will bring together all revolutionary and opposition forces. Syria is in desperate need of strong leadership that is cooperative and inclusive, a leadership that responds to the needs of the revolution and our steadfast people. Establishing such a framework will ensure that the new leadership enjoys the broad support of the Syrian people and thus has the legitimacy to be recognized as their representative.

We thus plan to form a broad, democratic, and inclusive political leadership to be called the Syrian National Initiative (SNI) and that will be based on the Cairo conference documents that the Syrian opposition agreed to in July 2012. The SNI will support the internal opposition and communicate with it and will be active on regional and international fronts.

The SNI also guarantees that there will be no political vacuum following the regime’s removal from power.

The recognition of this responsibility by all Syrian opposition factions will allow the SNI to work toward realizing the following goals:

1. Preserving the national sovereignty and independence of Syrian decisions
2. Preserving the nation’s geographic unity
3. Preserving the people’s unity
4. Emphasizing that the process of devising a political solution can only begin after Bashar al-Assad and the symbols of his regime are brought down and those responsible for the spilling of Syrian blood are brought to trial
5. Emphasizing the importance of establishing a civil, pluralistic, and democratic Syria

The Syrian National Initiative will also work to:

1. Establish a fund to support the Syrian people
2. Support the Free Syrian Army
3. Administer liberated territories
4. Plan for the transitional period
5. Secure international recognition

To this end, all factions of the Syrian political opposition, representatives of the Free Syrian Army, military councils, revolutionary forces, local councils, and national figures from the provinces will be invited to participate in this proposed initiative and set up the following four bodies:

1. The Initiative Body (which will include representatives from political groups, local councils, and revolutionary forces as well as national figures)
2. A Supreme Military Council (which will include representatives from the military councils and the brigades)
3. A Judicial Committee
4. A transitional government (which will be made up of technocrats)

The proposed project will be discussed in Doha on November 8 in order to arrive at the best possible framework to finalize the project.

50-member assembly

“An alternative to the regime is dearly needed,” Seif, a liberal politician who is battling cancer and was only released from prison in Syria in June, told Reuters.

“We are talking about a temporary period that begins with forming a political leadership until a national assembly that represents all Syrians meets in Damascus, once Assad falls,” The charismatic 66-year old, who has been suffering from cancer for years, said in an interview in Amman.

Unlike previous efforts that failed to come up with a unified leadership, Seif said the Doha assembly will be more inclusive, representing a myriad of religious and activists’ groupings as well as more members of Assad’s minority Alawite sect and Kurdish political leaders.

“We have 10 million Syrians who need everything from housing to security to public services, and a regime we have to take every possible measure to remove to avoid more losses,” Seif said, referring to inhabitants of areas under rebel control or where central authority had collapsed.

He proposes the formation of a new 50-member civilian group that will later choose a temporary government and coordinate with the military wing of the revolt.

He said the 50-member assembly will represent the “effective powers in the revolution” and “be convincing to the Syrian people”, adding that efforts were being made to bring the rebels under a unified military command.

Western, Turkish and Arab recognition of the new opposition structure, Seif said, will help channel anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels and “decide the battle”.

Seif said independent figures, such as Syrian intellectual Sadeq Jalal al-Azm, would be in the group to lend credibility. Representatives of opposition local councils that are providing services in Syria’s 14 governorates also will be on board.

Lebanon’s independent daily an-Nahar says current SNC chairman Abdelbaset Sida would be asked to name 15 members to the 50-seat assembly, but will probably haggle for a higher number.”

Among the other likely nominees for the assembly are Michel Kilo, Haitham al-Maleh, Abdulaziz al-Khair, Walid al-Bunni, Hassan Abdul Azim, Sheikh Osama al-Rifai, Aref Dalila, Razan Zaitouneh, Dr. Fedaa Hourani and Muntaha Sultan al-Atrash.

After Sandy, a hurricane to slam the Arab world

Hurricane Sandy on October 25 (Wikipedia)

By Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of al-Hayat daily, writing in Arabic

I watched in awe superstorm Sandy wreak havoc across the U.S. East Coast. I saw homes in ruin, flooded streets, cars floating downstream and boats stacked atop one another. TV screens kept everyone informed about Sandy’s powerful gusts and storm surges, the human and material losses it was causing and its likely impact on the impending Election Day.

Nature’s power can at times be so destructive and devastating as to wreck all Man’s endeavors and inventions and send them spinning.

But despite the killer-storm pounding New York and other places into submission, I felt envious. The Americans have a state, a president and a Congress to legislate and oversee the executive branch. They have fire brigades, civil defense authorities and a president to declare “major disaster” areas, where the number of deaths is nowhere near the daily quota of massacre and suicide fatalities in our cheerful capitals.

A guilty conscience nagged at me for focusing on a distant hurricane. So I switched back to TV channels focusing on Damascus, Maarat al-Nouman, Beirut, Baghdad, Sana’a and other such “disaster” cities.

Watching the news leads me to believe a megastorm is moving to the Middle East, where it could change long-established maps and sweep regimes and countries, precipitating rivers of blood in the process. The gusts of wind and rain gathering ahead of the hurricane’s landfall are the following:

1.   The Israel-Iran war did not break out yet, but we’ve seen some of its preambles; the assassination of scientists; the targeting of tourists; the bombing of Iranian weapon and ammunition depots in Sudan; and the sending from Lebanon of an Iranian-built drone to fly over Israel. The drone’s mission shows Iran at Israel’s doorstep via Hezbollah. It also confirms South Lebanon will flare up on the outbreak, or eve, of the war. It’s difficult to imagine the United States staying out of the fray, if only because Iran’s expected retaliation will necessarily undermine American interests in the region.

2.     It’s not difficult, however, to imagine the explosive nature of the ongoing conflict in Syria. The Iranian regime cannot tolerate concomitant defeats on her Syrian and nuclear fronts. Iran will most probably play all her cards to protect her Syria outgrowth and nuclear ambitions. This war will be more dangerous than the Iraq War for many reasons, given the looming war’s multiple theaters.

3.   The worsening of Sunnite-Shiite relations is unprecedented. A look at the situations in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and other places will suffice. Bloody flashpoints are sprouting across borders.

4.     Despite the “spring” nature of the early stages of the uprising in Syria, the blood-soaked conflict there cannot be dissociated today from the crisis among Syria’s constituent elements or the fate of Iran’s nuclear program or the Sunnite-Shiite estrangement.

5.   The fact international borders are no more sacrosanct is noteworthy. Whenever turmoil besets a country, it becomes a magnet for roving fighters who proceed to impose their ways, colors and slogans on events, creating unsightly scenes incompatible with “spring.” At the same time, masses that overthrew despotic rulers are disappointed to see the new powers that be sailing to the past, not the future. Add to these masses’ disenchantment the growing despair from the international community’s empty rhetoric of a two-state solution.

Everything suggests the hurricane is approaching. The Arabs are the more vulnerable side in the region. That’s why they are in the eye of the megastorm. The settling of Iranian-Turkish accounts on Syrian soil is evident. Iraq has clearly failed to mend its national unity. Lebanon is insisting on defying the monster storm. Jordan is frantically fumbling around its borders.

Poor hurricane Sandy – it barreled a U.S. region and left. It might still look like a breeze compared to the hurricane about to pummel our lands in the absence of safety valves. It is no exaggeration to say the Arabs can expect to be hit by a hurricane. They are already in its clutches.