 |
| Kerry and Lavrov: Gimme five! |
U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line” for Syria
has transmuted into a “white flag,” according to Abdelbari Atwan,
publisher/editor of the London-based pan-Arab daily al-Quds al-Arabi.
And most political analysts in today’s Arab press seem
to be of the same opinion.
The reaction is to last Tuesday’s announcement in Moscow of a
U.S.-Russian agreement to convene an international conference to find a
political solution on Syria.
U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry said they would encourage both Damascus and the opposition to
negotiate.
The deal came after
Kerry's talks in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov.
Kerry and Lavrov announced
they would try to organize the international conference before the end of May
if possible.
The forum will try to
convince both the Syrian government and opposition to accept a solution based
on the core elements of the final communiqué issued on 30 June 2012 after the
UN-backed Action Group for Syria meeting in Geneva (see my post of the same date, “Syria Action
Group leaves open Assad Question”).
The Geneva communiqué
called for the formation of a fully empowered transitional government. But there
was no understanding on the future role of President Bashar al-Assad and his
inner circle.
The opposition and
Washington were insisting he should stand down before any negotiations.
Now Washington seems to
have softened its position to the extent of leaving Assad's future up to the
outcome of negotiations and whatever the Syrians themselves decide, which has
long been Moscow’s position.
Atwan, in his editorial comment for al-Quds al-Arabi,
says: “Clearly, the U.S. administration made the bigger concession in Moscow by
embracing the Russian position.
“After drawing red
lines, saying it was reviewing its previous cautions policy and positions on
the Syria crisis, and considering the supply of lethal weapons to the Syrian
opposition, we see Washington totally surrendering to Russia’s conditions and
calling for a peace conference that recognizes the Syrian regime’s legitimacy.”
The administration has
suddenly clammed up on Assad having to step down before any negotiations, on
evidence of his using chemical weapons against his people, and on his days
being numbered.
Atwan says, “There are
two winners from the American-Russian political move.
“The first is President
Bashar al-Assad, albeit for the time being.
“The second is Special
Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
“Assad has recouped his
international legitimacy because he and his regime will now make a strong comeback
to the international arena – with the kind of U.S. blessings he had long been
hunting for.
“Lakhdar Brahimi will
shelve for six months his plans to resign and go into retirement and oblivion. He
will bask again in all the glory of returning to the political and media
spotlight, which he must be missing.
“America does not want
a war in Syria or Iran and wants to avoid them by all ways and means. The
Russians share its apprehension.
“The only war the two
sides want to wage independently or in tandem is against Islamic Jihadist
groups in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Thus, be prepared for
American and Russian ‘revivals’ that are now in the making.
“Whether the planned international
conference succeeds or fails, stifling Jabhat al-Nusra and its sisters is the headline
of the new Russian-American entente.”
Assad
Whether by design or
coincidence, three media outlets that
speak for Assad say, “The Syrian leadership is glad to see the world redirect
its center of attention to the threat posed by Muslim extremists and Takfiris.”
The quote comes from a news
report penned by Elie Chalhoub, co-founder and managing editor of al-Akhbar daily, Assad’s mouthpiece in
Lebanon
The report -- which is published simultaneously by Al-Akhbar, Syria’s state-run Champress
and Hezbollah’s al-Manar
news portal for emphasis -- quotes unnamed Assad aides as saying, “Several
factors worked very much in our favor, including Israel’s airstrike, al-Qaeda,
Jabhat al-Nusra, the Qatari-Saudi rivalry, Turkey’s Ottoman-style approach and
the opposition’s splintering. All this proved to all and sundry that there is
no substitute to the Syrian state.”
Chalhoub quotes Assad personally as telling visitors, “We could have
easily responded to Israel’s airstrike in Damascus by firing a few missiles at
Israel…
“That would have been a tactical response. We prefer a strategic
reaction by opening the door to the Resistance and turning the whole of Syria
into a resistance country…
“We have full confidence in Hezbollah and are extremely grateful for its
good judgment, loyalty and steadfastness. That’s why we decided to give them
everything. For the first time, we both felt we shared the same circumstance.
We are not only allies and paired…
“(We in Syria) decided to get closer and become a resistance state akin
to Hezbollah for the sake of Syria and (its) future generations.”
Winner and loser
The United States has for years listed Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization.
Saudi Arabia’s most eminent journalist, Abdurrahman
al-Rashed, who heads Alarabiya TV news channel, makes no mention of the group
in his
column today for the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat.
But he says, “Regrettably, the Americans are going
along with Lavrov’s plan…
“What we
can tell Secretary Kelly is not to trust the Russian-Iranian offer, which manipulates
American fears to dictate a political solution aimed at getting rid of Jihadist
organizations.
“In practice, the offer can only widen the conflict
and empower the terrorist groups. The latter will surely exploit the wrath of
the majority as it is coerced to go along with a solution it does not want,
coming as it is at the price of 100,000 deaths, five million refugees and a
country biting the dust.
“The solution should take the opposite route, one
that sees the international community empower the majority to win its political
rights with Assad shown the door immediately and not in a year’s time.”
The Russians, Rashed adds, are capitalizing on the
Americans’ alarm at getting Jihadists the day after Assad.
It is two years now since chaos and terror blighted
Syria. Subduing the revolting majority at this point will make it impossible to
restore any semblance of stability. “For the first time in the region’s history
terrorist groups like al-Qaeda will be able to amass loads of partners.”
Washington-based political analyst Hisham Melhem, writing
today for the independent Lebanese an-Nahar,
opines on “Winners
and losers.”
Unlike regular warfare, he says, civil wars are
fierce and emotive. Each side is familiar with the other, perceives the fight
as existential and anticipates a loser and a winner rather than a compromise.
“Countries where civil wars ended with a loser and a
winner – America and Spain, for instance – had a better chance to rebuild and
lay sound statehood foundations after a difficult transition, chiefly for the
loser.
“Countries where civil wars ended in compromises,
specially under international auspices – Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Iraq – remained
fragmented and prone to renewed internecine strife.”
The Syria war is unlikely to end with a negotiated
political solution and the U.S.-Russian blueprint as it stands is no more than
a pipe dream.
