G8 leaders agree laughable Syria statement

G8 leaders issued a closing statement on the second and final day of their summit in Northern Ireland backing calls for Syria peace talks in Geneva "as soon as possible."


The UK's David Cameron said leaders had "overcome fundamental differences,” but there was no timetable for the Geneva talks or mention of Bashar al-Assad's future role.

The Kremlin refused to support any statement making Assad's removal from power an explicit goal.

Answering one of his final questions, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said Western states should think "very carefully" before arming the Syrian opposition.

He mentioned the recent fatal stabbing of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London, comparing "many" of the Syrian rebels to the perpetrators.

"We fulfill legal contracts" delivering weapons to Assad, Putin said, adding non-government Syrian groups should not be supplied with arms.

French President Francois Hollande said it's necessary to give the Syrian opposition all the support it needs -- humanitarian, material, and political -- whilst weeding out "terrorist" elements.

He said Putin accepted participating in discussions about Syria in order to try to find joint positions, including the need for an enquiry into the use of chemical weapons.

The French leader said the proposed Geneva conference "could happen within a short period of time" and it represents a chance for a political transition. It was in Putin’s interests to make the Geneva peace conference on Syria happen, he said.

Here is what the G8 leaders said on Syria in their final statement:

Foreign Policy

82. We are determined to work together to stop the bloodshed and loss of life in Syria and to support the Syrian people to establish peace and stability through political means. We are gravely concerned at the appalling human tragedy that the UN estimates has cost the lives of over 93,000 people and led to 4.2 million internally displaced persons and 1.6 million refugees. We acknowledge the vital humanitarian role played by neighboring countries hosting Syrian refugees, above all Lebanon and Jordan, in dealing with the significant economic and security pressures they are facing as a result of the conflict and refugee influx. 

83. Given the extraordinary humanitarian need as reflected in the latest UN appeal for $5.2 billion in 2013, we are resolved to make exceptional contributions commensurate with the scale of the problem. At this meeting G8 Leaders confirmed additional contributions of almost $1.5 billion to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and its neighbors. We recognize that further contributions will be needed given the scale of the challenge. We urge other countries and organizations to make similar commitments. We call for aid agencies to be given immediate access to provide humanitarian assistance to all civilians in need, in accordance with humanitarian principles and international law, particularly in the worst affected areas such as Qusayr. 

84. We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.  We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva Conference on Syria to implement fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, which sets out a number of key steps  beginning with agreement on a transitional governing body with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent. As the Geneva Communiqué says, the public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However all governmental institutions and state offices must perform according to professional and human rights standards, operating under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body. 

85. Both sides at the Conference must engage seriously and constructively. They should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation. We will engage actively with the parties in order to achieve successful outcomes.  

86. We are deeply concerned by the growing threat from terrorism and extremism in Syria, and also by the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict.  Syria must belong to all Syrians, including its minorities and all religious groups. We call on the Syrian authorities and opposition at the Geneva Conference jointly to commit to destroying and expelling from Syria all organizations and individuals affiliated to Al Qaeda, and any other non-state actors linked to terrorism.  We will support UN planning for Syria’s transition, recovery, and reconstruction needs, in particular by maintaining continuity of state institutions during transition and helping to ensure that the security forces are effective, accountable and able to deal with the threat of terrorism and extremism. 

87. We condemn any use of chemical weapons in Syria and call on all parties to the conflict to allow access to the UN investigating team mandated by the UN Secretary-General, and drawing on the expertise of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and World Health Organization (WHO), in order to conduct an objective investigation into reports of use of chemical weapons. The UN team should make their report and deliver it to the UN Security Council for their assessment. We are determined that those who may be found responsible for the use of chemical weapons will be held accountable.  We emphasize the need for the secure and safe storage of all chemical weapons in Syria, pending their destruction under international verification. We also condemn in the strongest possible terms all human rights violations and abuses in Syria, committed by anyone, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians. We call on all sides to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, noting the particular responsibility of the Syrian authorities in this regard.

(…)

The price of Obama’s leading from behind in Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only smoke and mirrors in Geneva

Most Arab columnists believe today’s international conference in Geneva on the crisis in Syria, which was called by UN and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, is a non-starter.

“Geneva illusions,” “Better see Annan fail than wait up for his triumph,” and “Annan’s new plan reverses solution priorities” are three typical titles of commentaries in this morning’s papers.

Rosanna Boumounsef, in her daily column for the independent Lebanese daily an-Nahar, describes the Geneva meeting as no more than an occasion to take a look at the new wrapping of an old Annan mission, hoping that the reshuffling of its priorities would keep it alive. Annan’s now-defunct six-point plan made the cessation of violence and deployment of observers the gateway to a political dialogue in Syria. His new roadmap – dubbed “Guidelines and Principles for a Syrian-led Transition” – now expects political dialogue and a transitional government of national unity to put an end to violence.

Boumounsef says several of Annan’s associates previously went through such tests in Lebanon and other hotspots. “They are adept at improvising phased solutions and they excel at buying time to salvage international missions that the big powers cannot pronounce dead lest they are accused of exacerbating conflict instead of dampening it.”

Satei’ Noureddin, writing about the “Geneva illusions” for Beirut’s pro-Syrian daily as-Safir, does not expect today’s conference to be a turning point in the search for a political solution to the crisis in Syria. Instead, “it’s simply a new signal that the international community is not yet ready to put a stop to the crisis and remains on the lookout for added justifications to let the Syrians drown in their own blood.”

The conference idea, Noureddin explains, is “primarily an acknowledgement” of the failure of Annan’s earlier six-point plan and its appended UN observer mission. Collapse of the six-point called for an alternative political initiative that jumps straight to the long-term solution in that it lays the foundations for a transition to a pluralistic and democratic regime.

Noureddin says, “Even novice watchers of Syria’s internal conflict know this remains a dream if not an illusion. Specifically, President Bashar al-Assad’s interview with Iranian TV does not suggest he is ready to give up his security and military option or sacrifice his political reform agenda.”

Assad’s political reform timeline, Noureddine notes, has meanwhile “dropped to the level of a National Reconciliation Ministry in the new Syrian government that is ready to accept opposition applications for a resumption of dialogue under regime auspices.”

Unfortunately for the Syrians, Noureddin remarks, “the regime’s only option is security and military finality. That’s what Assad said explicitly. And that’s what prompts the opposition to regard such finality its sole recourse as well.”

In that light, “the Geneva conference becomes a bad diplomatic joke… Once more, the crisis in Syria will be returned to its roots. The international community will do everything possible to keep the Syria crisis contained within Syria’s borders, allowing the Geneva conference to dissipate any regional or international illusions about Syria’s future.”

Rajeh el-Khoury, who like Boumounsef writes for an-Nahar, says the meeting in Geneva “is of no consequence either one way or the other. It must be said, however, that four months into the Annan mission, which saw the killing of more than 3,000 people and the devastation of townships and neighborhoods, the mission’s greatest success would be an avowal of its failure.

“I would hasten to add,” writes Khoury, “that such avowal, coming after all the extra time allowed for bloodshed and tragedies, is the best success possible" because it would:

(1) Pressure the UN Security Council and the international community to assume their responsibilities.

(2) Quash the pretexts used by Moscow, which is hiding behind Annan and refusing any solution that sees Assad forced out.

(3) Leave Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Putin soaked in Syrian blood.

Khoury believes Moscow is clinging to Annan in order to use his shuttles as “a political smokescreen that conceals the bloodshed and grants (Assad) added time for an impossible military solution.”