Turning Geneva-2 into the tomb of Geneva-1

RT photo of Lavrov meeting RT journalists at an RT studio

Writing today for pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, political analyst Abdelwahhab Badrakhan says, “The United Nations might for the first time be banking on two chemical scientists to manage the planned Geneva conference on Syria instead of relying on experts in politics and diplomacy.

“Why?

“Because the aim, according to leaks and to information being circulated, is to concoct a composite of magical, miraculous and unknown ingredients allowing each of the sides concerned to claim the composite help realize its objectives:

“One, Bashar al-Assad and his regime remain in office with the consent of the opposition and the international community in order to fight the terrorists whose existence he predicted before they emerged in Syrian opposition ranks.

“Two, the opposition would receive a form of words reducing Assad’s prerogatives in preparation for his exit and changing the regime’s character, making it more representative of society’s sectarian components.

“The chief chemical scientists are Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry.

“The former, Lavrov, is more outspoken. His laboratory does not cease blending acids with toxins, facts with assumptions and aspirations in order to come up with prescriptions that are insoluble: The priority is to fight terror and to unify the regime and opposition in the war against it.

“The other, Kerry, uses his ambassador, Robert Ford, to deliver consecutive electrical shocks to tame the opposition’s demands. The opposition does not only have to live with the idea of Assad staying put, but with the army and security services remaining under Alawite command, in to prevent the army disintegrating and to protect the sect.

“Fair enough.

“But where is Geneva-1 from all this? And how is Geneva-2 convened on its basis or the basis of the invite to it to be made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in late December?”

LAVROV

In the buildup for Christmas Day, Lavrov gave RT (Russia Today), a global news channel broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios to over 100 countries around the globe, his appraisal of “the arrangements on Syria and Iran” and “the prospects for the Geneva-2 talks.

In his words:

The agreements to destroy the Syrian chemical arsenal and to convene the Geneva-2 conference, as well as the first stage agreement on further steps to resolve the Iran nuclear issue, are the fruit of years-long efforts. At least when it comes to Syria, we're talking about three years of Russia's consistent efforts of defending international law. The same applies to the progress on Iran. For over three years we'd been seeking two things: first, to get all the parties to the talks to agree that eventually Iran should have a recognized right to develop its peaceful nuclear program and enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power plants, while making sure that this program has no military dimension and that it is subject to total control of the IAEA, and providing security to all the countries in the region, including Israel.

***

The decisions regarding Syria and Iran are far from being fully implemented. As for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, everything is going according to plan, with minor deviations concerning the timeframe of the interim stages, though the reasons for that are objective rather than subjective. I am sure the deadline for the complete destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, June 30, will be met.

As for Geneva-2, we still have a long way to go. We don’t know for sure that this conference will be successful. And as regards the Iranian nuclear program, we’ve only reached an agreement concerning the first phase.

***

[Forced “democratization” results in instability]. This happened when Americans invaded Iraq; this happened recently, when NATO blatantly overstepped the UN Security Council mandate and bombed Libya; and this kind of external intervention is also happening in a number of other countries in the region. The Syrian conflict is another example of a situation where you have terrorists from all over the world, including Europe, U.S. and Russia, fight there to turn Syria, and in fact this whole region, into a caliphate. So, forced democratization by outside forces undermines stability and produces new threats. Greater stability, on the other hand, provides the best environment for democratic reforms.

So, when the conference on Syria opens (and I really hope that the conference will go ahead as planned on January 22; I hope the opposition does not come up with some unacceptable conditions contrary to the Russian-American initiative), I strongly believe this conference should focus on fighting terrorism as this is the main threat to Syria and other countries in the region today. Certainly, there will be other issues on the agenda, including pressing humanitarian issues, discussions on the political process, organizing the elections, provisional institutions for the transitional period, but all this should be based on a common understanding between the government and the opposition, just the way it was captured in the Geneva communiqué produced at the first Geneva conference.

So, I really hope that our Western partners and our partners in the region, which have more influence on the opposition than anybody else, will make sure, firstly, that the opposition is properly represented at this conference and, secondly, that the opposition attends the conference without any preconditions. The very point of the Russian-American initiative is that the people of Syria should agree on how to implement the principles captured in the Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2013, without any external intervention or any preconditions. But so far, unfortunately, we don’t know what the regime's opponents, who have recently formed the National Coalition, will do. We are alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition does not seem to have complete unity. We are also alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition keeps saying that this conference must result in a regime change, or even that a regime change is a prerequisite for having the conference. This is something we have never agreed to. We are also alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition does not seem to have complete control over all the groups fighting the regime on the ground. Another concern is that we see among the rebels an increasing number of jihadists who pursue extremist objectives. They want to set up a caliphate and impose sharia laws, and basically they are already terrorizing minorities.

They have formed what they call an Islamic Front, and some of our partners in the West are even flirting with it – even though we know from our confidential contacts with them that they know pretty well that the organizations which formed the Islamic Front are not much different from Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This alarms us.

***

The opposition says they will only take part in the conference if their various demands are met. Sometimes they insist on a regime change; sometimes they say they need guarantees that there will be a regime change immediately after the conference; sometimes they say they will only take part in the Geneva conference after the humanitarian crisis is taken care of. But in reality the humanitarian crisis gets worse mostly because of the militants, because of the groups that many countries have officially recognized as extremist and terrorist. So, we do need to address humanitarian issues, but instead of fighting symptoms we should fight the root cause of the crisis. And the root cause of the crisis is that the terrorist threat is extremely serious in Syria today, and the government and the opposition should come to an agreement on the key parameters regarding the future of their country, like I said earlier.

***

By the way, I should also mention that at the G8 summit in Lough Erne in June, all the leaders of the G8 countries urged both the Syrian government and the opposition in their communiqué to join their forces in fighting terrorists in order to defeat those terrorists and drive them out of Syria. This, I believe, is our top priority today. Once the situation stabilizes, once the rights of all minorities are secured, once the multi-ethnic and multi-faith nature of the Syrian state is secured, democratic institutions will follow. Stability is the number one priority today.

KHOURY

In his column for the independent Lebanese daily an-Nahar, political analyst Rajeh el-Khoury says if reports are true the Syrian National Coalition is divided on attending Geneva-2, it means some in the opposition are Lavrov apologists. They have no misgivings about ignoring Francois Hollande’s warning against the conference endorsing “a handover of power from Assad to Assad.”

Having gagged the Americans, the Russians eliminated the Syrian people and their dead from the political and moral equation and started to speak of Geneva-2 as a forum aimed solely at fighting terror.

In the Russians’ view, the terrorists are the Syrian civilians being decimated by Assad’s barrel bombs, Scud missiles and chemical weapons.

Geneva-2, in its Russian format, won’t thrash out a Syria solution. It is evident from his words, Lavrov wants Geneva-2 to be an international occasion to reproduce Assad as president of a country he had already turned into a graveyard for its inhabitants with Russian help.

The Russians’ brutality and the meanness of the Americans are such that they both are mum on Assad’s use of barrel bombs to turn Aleppo neighborhoods into burial grounds for Syrian children and civilians.

Those who turned a blind eye to the use of chemicals in the two Ghoutas before applauding Assad for handing over his chemicals arsenal have no qualms about turning Geneva-2 into the grave of Geneva-1. 

“Hell” phase: Russia-U.S. give Assad a free hand

The Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad is set to launch “Russia’s war” on the opposition imminently.

Lavrov, Clinton and Brahimi

Leading political analyst and commentator Abdelwahhab Badrakhan, writing today for pan-Arab al-Hayat, expects the U.S. to continue sitting on the bench without a sound.

He explains:

Why did the Russians and Lakhdar Brahimi suddenly try to hard sell a “political solution” in Syria before bungling the attempt altogether?

Why did the joint UN-Arab League Special Envoy’s style metamorphose into Sergei Lavrov’s?

The answer is the U.S.-Russian understanding reached by the Russian foreign minister and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Dublin last December 7.

The U.S. Administration wants to preempt any development that would force it to ultimately intervene in Syria.

Even the “red line” drawn by Barack Obama on the regime’s use of chemical weapons has now been blurred. The regime has been made aware it could use chemical weapons, but only “within designated geographic parameters.”

U.S. promises of financial aid and advanced weapons to the Syrian opposition to set up the Syrian National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces proved to be a honeytrap.

All Syrian opposition sources now confirm financial and military support by other “Friends of Syria,” which started falling off last August, dried up completely after the umbrella group was formed last November.

Washington’s priority has invariably been a political deal between the opposition and members of the government who “do not have blood on their hands” followed by Assad’s exit, albeit after a few months.

Moscow’s argument was that a settlement without Assad and his cooperation is unworkable and the priority is to restructure the army and security services.

After some hesitation, Washington tasked Moscow to convince its ally, Assad. Moscow agreed to fulfill the job in the context of the Geneva Declaration, with the added U.S. proviso that the proposed transitional government be given “full executive powers.”

Brahimi took the U.S.-Russian understanding and communicated to Assad in Damascus. The latter chose to first discuss his answer with Russia first. Feisal Mekdad flew to Moscow to say his boss refuses to transfer his powers and is bent on completing his term and on running for reelection in 2014.

Moscow tactlessly hastened to throw the ball into the Syrian opposition’s court. In response, it got an undiplomatic answer from the opposition leader.

After marginalizing the opposition, Russia and Brahimi asked it to sit at the conference table with a regime they knew was unwilling to compromise.

Having played the first round of middlemen with the U.S. sitting on the bench totally silent, Lavrov and Brahimi upped the ante.

They blurted out scaremongering remarks about “hell,” “Somalization” and “100,000 deaths,” knowing all too well the regime doesn’t care and the opposition won’t be cowed.

With neither the regime nor the opposition ready for a deal, the Russians and Americans plan to resume their consultations on Syria. Most probably, they will agree to sit back and let the two sides fight it out until sheer exhaustion forces them to sit and talk.

What does that mean in practice?

It means Russia telling the regime to forge ahead and give the opposition a taste of “hell.”

Before long, the regime will be fighting Russia’s war.

Moscow wants the regime to go all out and change the balance of forces on the ground in the weeks leading up to its new round of consultations with Washington. It will accordingly cover the regime’s overt reliance on Iran and Hezbollah.

Will the U.S. administration have something new to tell Lavrov and Brahimi at the new round of talks? No.

Washington said what it wanted to say on the eve of the “Friends of Syria” conference in Marrakesh, when it designated Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist organization.

The designation expressed the U.S. position on Syria much more accurately than its recognition of the opposition Coalition the next day.

The Obama administration’s approach is to avoid the Iraq experience in Syria.

Washington, which almost regrets toppling Saddam Hussein, is very nearly reprieving Assad.

Look for America!

Cuba, Baghdad and turning Aleppo to rubble & ash

Aleppo's souks on fire (Photo from BBC News)

Raging battles between Syrian government forces and rebels in the historic districts of central Aleppo have started a major fire that threatens to destroy the city's medieval markets.

Reports say hundreds of shops in the souk, one of the best preserved in the Middle East, have been destroyed.

The labyrinth of narrow alleys lined with shops was once a major tourist attraction, but has been the scene of near-daily firefights and shelling in recent weeks, after rebels who fought their way into the city two months ago pushed toward its center.

Some activists described the overnight blaze as the worst blow yet to a district that helped make the heart of Aleppo, Syria's largest city and commercial hub, a UNESCO world heritage site.

The fire started late Friday amid heavy government shelling and was still burning Saturday, activists told The Associated Press. Video posted online showed a pall of smoke hanging over the city.

One Aleppo-based activist, Ahmad al-Halabi, estimated the fire destroyed a majority of the shops in the district.

"It's a disaster. The fire is threatening to spread to remaining shops," said al-Halabi, speaking to AP from the stricken area by telephone. He claimed Syrian authorities cut the water supply off the city, making it more difficult to put out the fire. He said rebels and civilians were working together to control the fire with a limited number of fire extinguishers.

"It is a very difficult and tragic situation there," he said.

The souks -- a maze of vaulted passageways with shops that sell everything from foods, fabrics, perfumes, spices and artisan souvenirs -- lie beneath Aleppo's towering citadel where activists say regime troops and snipers have taken up positions.

Many of the shops have wooden doors, and clothes, fabrics and leather inside helped spread the fire, activists said.

"It's a big loss and a tragedy that the old city has now been affected," Kishore Rao, director of UNESCO's World Heritage Center, told AP.

In awarding heritage status, UNESCO said Aleppo's "13th-century citadel, 12th-century Great Mosque and various 17th-century madrasas, palaces, caravanserais and hammams all form part of the city's cohesive, unique urban fabric."

The Guardian says Aleppo's souks are not the only Syrian cultural treasures to have fallen victim to the violence following the country's uprising and the crackdown by the Assad regime.

Some of the country's most significant sites, including centuries-old fortresses, have been caught in the crossfire in battles between regime forces and rebels. Others have been turned into military bases. In Homs, where up to 7,000 are estimated to have died, historic mosques and souk areas have also been smashed and artifacts stolen.

In his Aleppo-related column this morning for the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, the peerless Samir Atallah writes of “Cuba, Baghdad and Aleppo.”

In his words, as rephrased from Arabic:

Politics has many rules that are mostly uncivil and unethical. Rules in politics often prioritize interests over humans. The latter are at times sacrificed on account of concern or cowardice.

Cuba was at one point the Soviet Union’s Number One ally -- a Communist island nation (just 90 miles) off U.S. shores. Moscow, for Cuba’s sake, risked a nuclear war that could have devastated the world.

A while later, America started instigating East Europe against the Soviets. As soon as it felt America’s grip tightening around its neck, Moscow counseled Fidel Castro to stop backing Communist movements in Latin America.

Though he fancied painting the whole southern hemisphere red, Castro desisted – not so much to avoid irritating Moscow but for fear of an American-Soviet deal at his expense. Who says Russia won’t close its eyes to an American invasion of Cuba such as America let pass the Soviets’ occupation of Prague?

“Today’s Iraq” resembles the “1960s Cuba.” Today’s Iraq has ideological ties with Iran. It also complies with demands from its American ally, who signed away at the White House the State of Law Coalition to the epitome of democracy, Nouri al-Maliki.

When Barack Obama’s busy schedule prevented him from flying to Baghdad, Maliki hopped over to Washington to receive the freedom keys. And as soon as he returned to Baghdad, Maliki refocused on reconciling his old crush on Iran with new American constraints. That’s why when America told him Iran should stop using Iraqi airspace to fly arms to Syria, he listened to his head, not his heart – or so it seems.

In the Syria war, each has a tie-in. We don’t need to know them all today. We could get to know them after a while or when it is too late. But there is certainly a link-in-the-chain that makes Hilary Clinton talk more like a political analyst from The Times than a secretary of state.

There is another tie-in that makes China stand by Russia against Arab states and their Arab League, Europe and the Muslim-world-minus-Iran.

In politics, no rule prevents the monitoring of developments on the ground to gauge the power balance instead of to take care of victims. That’s why no one sees the Bombing of Aleppo as akin to the Bombing of Dresden.

In 1975, Suleiman Franjieh sent two rusting Hawker Hunter warplanes to bomb Palestinian refugee camps. The outcry in the Arab world saw the fighter-bomber jets hangared again.

Each day, loathsome MIGs take to Syria’s skies to pound cities and turn Aleppo neighborhoods into piles of rubble and ash.

Meantime, the world at the United Nations still has to listen to the speeches of Sergei Lavrov.

Saudi monarch now at daggers drawn with Assad

Saudi Arabia is now throwing its full weight behind the drive to rid Syria of President Bashar al-Assad.

King Abdullah

King Abdullah yesterday called a two-day emergency summit of Muslim nations in three weeks time to address “the dangers of fragmentation and seditions” they are facing.

Assumptions the planned August 14-15 summit is also linked to the Syria crisis were enhanced by another announcement from the Saudi monarch. He ordered the launch today of a nationwide fundraising campaign to help “our brothers in Syria.”

This is reminiscent of the mid-1980s, when Saudi public fund-raisers generated financial support for liberating Afghanistan from the Soviets.

Political analyst Sarkis Naoum, in his column this morning for Beirut’s independent daily an-Nahar, says Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia has “assumed the captaincy of Arab players backing the Syrian revolution politically as well as with arms, training and cash to help it topple Assad and his regime.”

The Kingdom’s motive he writes, “is not only to safeguard the interests, rights and freedoms of the majority of Syrians, but to face up to the challenge Iran is posing” to Saud Arabia’s Gulf and Arab partners after Iran made serious inroads in the Arab world’s heartland.

Naoum says insiders got wind last week of Saudi Arabia’s resolve and commitment to push Assad out when King Abdullah appointed Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States for 22 years, as the new chief of General Intelligence.

“And it is an open secret that Prince Bandar has been championing a face-off with Syria in Lebanon since at least 2005,” Naoum writes.

Saudi Arabia, in the eyes of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is “the most hostile country to Special Envoy Kofi Annan and his Syria mission,” according to a report published this morning in Hezbollah and Syria’s Lebanese mouthpiece al-Akhbar.

The report penned for al-Akhbar by journalist Nasser Sharara appears simultaneously on Syria’s state-run Champress website.

According to Sharara:

The relationship between Lavrov and Annan “is close-knit.”  When Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem once complained to Lavrov that Annan was not appreciating the Syrian regime’s goodwill initiatives, “Lavrov said: He (Annan) does nothing before consulting me first.”

Upholding the Annan mission is Lavrov’s brainchild. He believes the most hostile state to Annan and his Syria mission is Saudi Arabia. In many of his diplomatic contacts, Lavrov keeps asking: “Why doesn’t Riyadh receive Annan, albeit once?”

In his meetings with European Union ambassadors in Moscow, Lavrov cited three Syria-related Russian concerns: (1) Syria sliding to Muslim Brotherhood rule that would destabilize Central Asia (2) The empowerment of Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda members who are now threatening Algeria and the South African Development Community and (3) The safety of a 45,000-strong Russian community in Syria.

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, quotes one of Vladimir Putin’s recent interlocutors as saying, “The Russian president acts as if the West and Turkey fell into the Syria crisis trap. He says the West and Turkey posture but are unable to intervene militarily; they also fail to mobilize the UN Security Council to remove Assad.”

The interlocutor – who also heard Putin say Moscow can’t accept the massacre or ejection of Syria’s minorities -- left with the impression Russia is set on continuing to take advantage of the entrapment of its opponents.

Charbel says, “Putin’s Russia hates Western human rights and welfare organizations. It doesn’t want to see the disease spreading and infecting its Muslims. China has similar concerns in this respect. Russia could be reminding the United States of the need to redraw zones of influence and address such pending issues as ballistic missile defense systems.

“Developments on the ground in Syria foretell the derailment of Russia’s exploitation of what it deems to be its detractors’ snare.

“Clearly, the Syrian regime is still able to fight. But it is no longer able to exit the tunnel.

“Happenings in Damascus and Aleppo may change the scene. Russia was asking the West to pay for a solution. Developments could yet force Russia to pay for a doorway. Russia could still discover she walked into a trap herself after losing a bet in Syria and alienating the Arab, Islamic and Western worlds.

“Iran in turn will ultimately discover the magnitude of the trap in which she fell. Her stand on the Syria crisis adds to her Arab, Islamic and international isolation. It also exposes her to risks in a region full of surprises.

“Having previously reaped the benefits of America’s Iraq entrapment, Iran may now have to pay the price of her ambush in Syria. And so does Hezbollah…”

Annan, a dream merchant yet to hear Umm Qusay

Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, Gen. Robert Mood and Sergei Lavrov

After writing, reading, re-reading and mulling over my preceding post -- “Minutes of Assad-Annan new truce deal” -- I thought Kofi Annan’s title should be changed from Joint Special Envoy of the UN and Arab League for Syria to Joint Special Envoy of the Russian Federation and Islamic Republic of Iran for bailing out Bashar al-Assad.

Judging from editorial comments in the regional press, my opinion is shared by many.

I counted at least six columnists today questioning Annan’s approach, job performance and mandate.

One of them, Farmaz Hussein, writing for the first daily Arab independent on-line newspaper Elaph, wonders bluntly: “Is Annan a diplomat or an opportunist?”

Another, Hassan Haidar, writing for the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, believes “Annan overstepped his mandate.”

A third, Rajeh el-Khoury, writing for Lebanon’s independent newspaper an-Nahar, accuses the special envoy of closing his eyes to the “step by step killings” in Syria.

The 1994 Rwandan genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre occurred on the former UN secretary-general’s watch, Farmaz Hussein recalls. “And had Annan had his way in 2003, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would have been oppressing the Iraqi people to this day.”

Also writing for Elaph, Nohad Ismail says, “Absurd maneuvers and sterile meetings will lead Annan nowhere. He will ultimately discover that he was led to play the role of a halfwit duped by a cunning tyrant sitting in Damascus.

“Annan was wrong to call on Assad and then fly to Tehran and Baghdad, the two capitals supportive of the dictatorship in Syria and hostile to the Syrian people’s revolution. He failed to show up at the (Friends of Syria) conference in Geneva, but was eager to visit conspirators against the Syrian people.”

Ismail says, “Annan would have done much better to go to disaster areas in Idlib, Rastan, Deraa, Hama and Deir al-Zor, among others.  He would have done much better to tour Syrian refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, if only to hear stories” like Umm Qusay’s.

“Umm Qusay” refers to a mother in Atarib, Syria, called Amina. She described in graphic detail to The Daily Telegraph’s Ruth Sherlock how government forces tied a rope around the leg of her disabled son Qusay, dragged him through the streets, beat him until unconscious and then shot him dead.

According to renowned political analyst Abdelwahhab Badrakhan, Annan wasn’t mourning his mission when he had a good cry in his recent interviews with France’s Le Monde and the UK’s Guardian. In effect, Badrakhan writes for al-Hayat, the special envoy was sobbing to win an extension of his mandate.

“Oddly, Annan blames his failure on the Friends of Syria, who – unlike Russia and Syria’s regime – didn’t lend him a hand. He thought he only lacked Iran’s help to succeed.

“Annan isn’t naïve. But he overlooks the specifics -- that he embarked on a deactivated task and that his helpers controlled his steps before he set out. The mere fact that Assad hastens to defend Annan and rule out his failure should make clear to the joint special envoy of the UN and Arab League that he is playing into the regime’s hands as a dream merchant.”

Badrakhan says Annan is daydreaming if he thinks he can sell the Syrian people a hollow political process cobbled together by Assad, Russia’s Sergei Lavrov and Iran’s Qassem Soleimani. Were all the Syrian people’s sacrifices made to win a dialogue with a killer regime on how best to keep it in place?

An-Nahar’s Rajeh el-Khoury describes as “scandalous” Annan’s entreaties at his latest meeting with Assad in Damascus -- “Mr. President, let’s try again, let’s agree a mechanism for a ceasefire starting with any one of the (Syrian) hotspots. We can then duplicate it in another… At the same time, we would ask for a goodwill gesture on your part in the chosen area. Let’s try applying this (phased ceasefire) approach step by step.”

Al-Hayat’s Hassan Haidar in turn says, “Notwithstanding Annan’s excuses for flying to Tehran and declaring Iran can play a ‘positive role’ in resolving Syria’s deepening crisis, the trip was a departure from his mandate, which is based on the Arab League roadmap for a transition in Syria that was endorsed by the UN Security Council. His shuttles have turned into time wasting pending military and political developments and the fate of the UN observer mission, which is already on its deathbed.

“The Syrian National Council’s talks in Moscow yesterday confirmed that Annan’s improvisations are leading nowhere. Moscow, as the Syrian opposition found out, is not yielding an inch on its support of Assad. So how does Annan expect Iran, which is up to its ears in defending Damascus’ ruler, to play a ‘positive role’ in anything to do with a political transition meant to lead to regime change?

“…Even if some believe the state of flux will persist at least until after the U.S. elections, thus justifying the need for some sort of go-between, the UN and League of Arab States are called upon to restrain their joint envoy and order him to stop breaching the terms of his mandate.”

Useful links:

• Annan’s remarks to Security Council on Syria
• UK draft resolution on Syria (UNSMIS) under Chapter VII

“The Kremlin will give up Assad”

Drawing by Natalia Mikhailenko for Kommersant

An unforeseen twist in the Syria crisis concerning the future of President Bashar al-Assad is looming, according to Russia’s political and business daily Kommersant.

"We aren't defending Assad," an unidentified Kremlin source told Kommersant earlier this week. "The president of Syria has missed his chance. The likelihood of him remaining in power is slim, about 10 percent."

On Thursday, July 5, Kommersant also published a comment by Konstantin von Eggert surprisingly titled, “The Kremlin will give up Assad.”

Eggert is a commentator and host for radio Kommersant FM, Russia's first 24-hour news station. He also writes a weekly column for RIA Novosti. In the 1990s he was Diplomatic Correspondent for Izvestia and later the BBC Russian Service’s Moscow Bureau Editor.

Here is Eggert’s 405-word opinion piece published Thursday by Kommersant:

Russia has had it its way – there will be no Western military intervention or forced change of regime in Syria; however, the West also seems to have succeeded – Bashar Assad’s fate will soon become a bargaining chip in negotiating future settlements.

According to unnamed sources, Russian officials have admitted in private that the Syrian leader has missed the boat and his chances of remaining at the presidential Tishreen Palace in Damascus are slim. Yet Moscow wants him to delay stepping down as long as possible. Back in the spring, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that the Yemeni scenario for handover of power in Syria would suit Russia. In Yemen, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh handed over the reins to his vice president and retired with a personal security guarantee in his pocket. This scenario will not work in Syria – so much blood has been shed there that the Yemeni clashes will never ever match the Syrian civil war. Furthermore, there are many more religious groups in Syria than in Yemen.

The potential future leader of Syria will have to address two tasks that are virtually mutually exclusive – to retain the loyalty of the army that currently supports Assad and simultaneously dismantle the regime. There is no such man in the Syrian opposition at the moment. Assad, who has done his best to keep the Syrian political field barren, now says there is no one to negotiate with. But I guess that nature abhors a vacuum and so the opposition will find someone, while Assad, for his part, will likely eye Minsk as a possible destination. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has nothing to lose by offering asylum to Assad; he has already alienated half the world. The Kremlin, on the other hand, will not be willing to irritate the Arabs by offering the former dictator a new home.

The hardest thing to imagine is Vladimir Putin or Sergei Lavrov calling Assad and saying, “Pack your bags. There is nothing else we can do for you.” This will be the end of the special relationship between Moscow and Damascus, which was established 40 years ago during the first years of the presidency of Hafez Assad, the incumbent president’s father. Even if some of Russia’s interests in Syria should be protected by special accords, there will be new people arriving at the Damascus offices, without any Moscow numbers on speed dial on their phones.

Separately, Syrian opposition figures are meantime heading to Moscow this week for talks with Lavrov.

The Russian foreign minister will meet with delegates from the Syrian Democratic Forum tomorrow, Monday.

The Forum’s most prominent figures are Aref Dalila and Fayez Sara.

Lavrov is also set to hold talks with representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC), the country's largest opposition group, on Wednesday.

SNC executive member George Sabra tells today’s edition of the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat: “It is hard to predict what will be the Russian positions during our visit to Moscow on the 11^th of July. But in discussing the situation in Syria, we will be emphasizing the Syrian regime is a thing of the past and they (Russians) need to concede this and start working for the transition to a democratic and multiparty state bereft of killings and deaths.”

He said the SNC group would be reiterating to Moscow that a transitional government should exclude Assad and his clique but bring together both oppositionists and loyalists. Referring to loyalists, he said Syrian army and Baath Party ranks include many nationalist figures opposed to the regime’s crackdown on its own people.

Commenting on the reports in Kommersant, Sabra said, “This is additional proof that Russian policy is evolving. Moscow is realizing Assad is the past. He is not part of the problem – he is the problem per se. I hope the (Moscow) policy shift won’t be long in coming…”

Syria Action Group leaves open Assad question

Geneva rabbit out of the magician's hat

Saturday's global conference on Syria agreed a UN-brokered peace plan for the country, but left open the key question of whether President Bashar al-Assad could be part of a transitional government.

Special envoy Kofi Annan read the final communiqué, which says the transitional government could include members of the current government.

He later told a press conference it would take "a year" for the transitional government to be put in place and that Assad's future "is their (the Syrian people's) business."

Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters the agreed plan does not require Assad's ouster.

However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted after the meeting that Assad would still have to go, saying "it is now incumbent on Russia and China to show Assad the writing on the wall."

Following is the full text of the final communiqué by the Action Group on Syria:

1. On 30 June 2012, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, the Foreign Ministers of China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Turkey, Iraq (Chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States), Kuwait (Chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the League of Arab States) and Qatar (Chair of the Arab Follow-up Committee on Syria of the League of Arab States), and the European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy met at the United Nations Office at Geneva as the Action Group for Syria, chaired by the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States for Syria.

2. Action Group members came together out of grave alarm at the situation in Syria. They strongly condemn the continued and escalating killing, destruction and human rights abuses. They are deeply concerned at the failure to protect civilians, the intensification of the violence, the potential for even deeper conflict in the country, and the regional dimensions of the problem. The unacceptable nature and magnitude of the crisis demands a common position and joint international action.

3. Action Group members are committed to the sovereignty, independence, national unity and territorial integrity of Syria. They are determined to work urgently and intensively to bring about an end to the violence and human rights abuses and the launch of a Syrian-led political process leading to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their own future.

4. To secure these common objectives, the Action Group members (i) identified steps and measures by the parties to secure full implementation of the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043, including an immediate cessation of violence in all its forms; (ii) agreed on guidelines and principles for a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people; and (iii) agreed on actions they would take to implement the above in support of the Joint Special Envoy’s efforts to facilitate a Syrian-led political process. They are convinced that this can encourage and support progress on the ground and will help to facilitate and support a Syrian-led transition.

Identified steps and measures by the parties to secure full implementation of the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043, including an immediate cessation of violence in all its forms

5. The parties must fully implement the six-point plan and Security Council resolutions 2042 and 2043. To this end:

A -- All parties must re-commit to a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms and implementation of the six-point plan immediately and without waiting for the actions of others. The government and armed opposition groups must cooperate with UNSMIS with a view to furthering the implementation of the above in accordance with its mandate.

B -- A cessation of armed violence must be sustained with immediate, credible and visible actions by the Government of Syria to implement the other items of the six-point plan including:

a -- Intensification of the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities; provision without delay through appropriate channels of a list of all places in which such persons are being detained; the immediate organization of access to such locations; and the provision through appropriate channels of prompt responses to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons; 

b -- Ensuring freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them; 

c -- Respecting freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.

C -- In all circumstances, all parties must show full respect for UNSMIS’ safety and security and fully cooperate with and facilitate the Mission in all respects.

D -- In all circumstances, the Government must allow immediate and full humanitarian access to humanitarian organizations to all areas affected by the fighting. The Government and all parties must enable the evacuation of the wounded, and all civilians who wish to leave to do so. All parties must fully adhere to their obligations under international law, including in relation to the protection of civilians.

Agreed Principles and Guidelines for a Syrian-led transition

6. Action Group members agreed on the following ‘Principles and Guidelines on a Syrian-led transition’:

Any political settlement must deliver to the people of Syria a transition that:

• Offers a perspective for the future that can be shared by all in Syria;

• Establishes clear steps according to a firm timetable towards the realization of that perspective;

• Can be implemented in a climate of safety for all, stability and calm;

• Is reached rapidly without further bloodshed and violence and is credible.

I. Perspective for the Future 

The aspirations of the people of Syria have been clearly expressed by the wide range of Syrians consulted. There is an overwhelming wish for a state that:

• Is genuinely democratic and pluralistic, giving space to established and newly emerging political actors to compete fairly and equally in elections. This also means that the commitment to multiparty democracy must be a lasting one, going beyond an initial round of elections.

• Complies with international standards on human rights, the independence of the judiciary, accountability of those in government and the rule of law. It is not enough just to enunciate such a commitment. There must be mechanisms available to the people to ensure that these commitments are kept by those in authority.

• Offers equal opportunities and chances for all. There is no room for sectarianism or discrimination on ethnic, religious, linguistic or any other grounds. Numerically smaller communities must be assured that their rights will be respected.

II. Clear Steps in the Transition

The conflict in Syria will only end when all sides are assured that there is a peaceful way towards a common future for all in Syria. It is therefore essential that any settlement provides for clear and irreversible steps in the transition according to a fixed time frame. The key steps in any transition include:

• The establishment of a transitional governing body, which can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place. That means that the transitional governing body would exercise full executive powers. It could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.

• It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country. All groups and segments of society in Syria must be enabled to participate in a National Dialogue process. That process must not only be inclusive, it must also be meaningful—that is to say, its key outcomes must be implemented.

• On this basis, there can be a review of the constitutional order and the legal system. The result of constitutional drafting would be subject to popular approval.

• Once the new constitutional order is established, it is necessary to prepare for and conduct free and fair multiparty elections for the new institutions and offices that have been established.

• Women must be fully represented in all aspects of the transition.

III. Safety, stability and calm

Any transition involves change. However, it is essential to ensure that the transition can be implemented in a way that assures the safety of all in an atmosphere of stability and calm. This requires:

• Consolidation of full calm and stability. All parties must cooperate with the transitional governing body in ensuring the permanent cessation of violence. This includes completion of withdrawals and addressing the issue of the disarming, demobilization and reintegration of armed groups.

• Effective steps to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected and immediate action is taken to address humanitarian issues in areas of need. It is also necessary to ensure that the release of the detained is completed rapidly.

• Continuity of governmental institutions and qualified staff. The public services must be preserved or restored. This includes the military forces and security services. However, all governmental institutions, including the intelligence services, have to perform according to human rights and professional standards and operate under a top leadership that inspires public confidence, under the control of the transitional governing body.

• Commitment to Accountability and National Reconciliation. Accountability for acts committed during the present conflict must be addressed. There also needs to be a comprehensive package for transitional justice, including compensation or rehabilitation for victims of the present conflict, steps towards national reconciliation and forgiveness.

IV. Rapid steps to come to a Credible Political Agreement

It is for the people of Syria to come to a political agreement, but time is running out. It is clear that:

• The sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria must be respected.

• The conflict must be resolved through peaceful dialogue and negotiation alone. Conditions conducive to a political settlement must now be put in place.

• There must be an end to bloodshed. All parties must re-commit themselves credibly to the six-point plan. This must include a cessation of armed violence in all its forms and immediate, credible and visible actions to implement items 2-6 of the six-point plan.

• All parties must now engage genuinely with the Joint Special Envoy. The parties must be prepared to put forward effective interlocutors to work expeditiously towards a Syrian-led settlement that meets the legitimate aspirations of the people. The process must be fully inclusive to ensure that the views of all segments of Syrian society are heard in shaping the political settlement for the transition. The organized international community, including the members of the Action Group stands ready to offer significant support for the implementation of an agreement reached by the parties. This may include an international assistance presence under a United Nations Mandate if requested. Significant funds will be available to support reconstruction and rehabilitation.

Agreed actions Group members will take to implement the above in support of the Joint Special Envoy’s efforts to facilitate a Syrian-led political process

7. Action Group members will engage as appropriate, and apply joint and sustained pressure on, the parties in Syria to take the steps and measures outlined in paragraph 5.

8. Action Group members are opposed to any further militarization of the conflict.

9. Action Group members underscore to the Government of Syria the importance of the appointment of an effective empowered interlocutor, when requested by the Joint Special Envoy to do so, to work on the basis of the six-point plan and this communiqué.

10. Action Group members urge the opposition to increase cohesion and be in a position to ensure effective representative interlocutors to work on the basis of the six- point plan and this communiqué.

11. Action Group members will give full support to the Joint Special Envoy and his team as they immediately engage the Government and opposition, and consult widely with Syrian society, as well as other international actors, to further develop the way forward.

12. Action Group members would welcome the Joint Special Envoy’s further convening of a meeting of the Action Group should he deem it necessary to review the concrete progress taken on all points agreed in this communiqué, and to determine what further and additional steps and actions are needed from the Action Group to address the crisis. The Joint Special Envoy will also keep the United Nations and the League of Arab States informed.