UK to supply armor to Syrian opposition forces

The UK is to supply armored vehicles and body armor to Syrian opposition forces in a bid to end a crisis that has reached "catastrophic proportions", Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons today (see the full text of his statement below).

Almost at the same time, Brig. Gen. Salim Idriss, chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army, made an impassioned plea to the European Union to lift its arms embargo to help Syrian rebels protect civilians from regime forces.

His message to MEPs at a special meeting in Brussels of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) was, "Please, please help us."

He said 150,000-armed rebels are in Syria now, but 200,000 more are unarmed and willing to counter Bashar al-Assad's forces that were "very clearly" being backed by Russia and Iran.

"First of all, we need anti-aircraft weapons in order to fight against Assad's forces and stop not only the killings but also the destruction of the country."

Idriss told the meeting humanitarian and medical aid was also "urgently" needed to deal with the unfolding refugee crisis.

ALDE leader Guy Verhofstadt backed his message, telling the meeting he hoped that military advances by the forces led by Idriss would be a “turning point” in the conflict.

Here’s the full text of Hague’s oral statement to the House of Commons on Syria:

Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement on the crisis in Syria.

The time has come to announce to the House necessary developments in our policy, and our readiness to develop it further if the bloodshed continues. Two years after it began, the conflict has reached catastrophic proportions.

10,000 people have died since I last updated the House in early January. That means more people have died in the first two months of this year than in the whole of the first year of the conflict. The total estimated death toll is now over 70,000 people.

The regime has used “scud” ballistic missiles against civilian areas. And the UN Commission of Inquiry for Syria has found evidence of grave human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity; including massacres, torture, summary executions and a systematic policy of rape and sexual violence by the regime’s forces and its militia.

A year ago one million people needed humanitarian aid inside Syria. That figure is now up to four million people, out of a total population of 21 million. 40,000 people are fleeing Syria each week, three quarters of them women and children. The number of refugees has increased thirty-fold over the last ten months, and today the sad milestone of one million refugees has been reached. The population of Lebanon, which I visited two weeks ago, has risen by 10% from the influx of destitute people.

This is a desperate situation of increasingly extreme humanitarian suffering.

There is no sign that the Assad regime currently intends to enter into a genuine political process. They appear to believe they can defeat their opponents militarily; and they count on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations Security Council. It will be necessary to turn each of these calculations on its head if the conflict is to come to a peaceful end.

Securing a diplomatic breakthrough remains of course our objective. Last week I discussed Syria with the new US Secretary of State John Kerry here in London, and with other close partners in a core group meeting of the Friends of the Syrian people in Rome. In Rome I also met the Syrian National Coalition’s President Mr. al-Khatib, and welcomed his brave announcement that the national coalition is open to direct talks with members of the Assad regime.

We continue our efforts to develop common ground with Russia. I will have talks with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov later this afternoon, and next week with Foreign Minister Lavrov also here in London.

And at the end of January the UN and Arab League Special Representative for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi set out a credible plan for the establishment of a transitional authority in Syria. We are working with allies to achieve if at all possible Security Council backing for a transition process, and I am meeting Mr. Brahimi again, also this afternoon.

But the fact remains that diplomacy is taking far too long and the prospect of an immediate breakthrough is slim. Each month of violence in Syria means more death, wider destruction, larger numbers of refugees, and bloodier military confrontation.

The international community cannot stand still in the face of this reality. Our policy has to move towards more active efforts to prevent the loss of life in Syria and this means stepping up our support to the opposition and thereby increasing the pressure on the regime to accept a political solution. What we face is not a choice between diplomacy on the one hand and practical assistance on the other: helping the opposition is crucial to bringing about a political transition and saving lives, and both must be pursued together.

We will always be careful in how we develop our policy. But our readiness to develop it further should be unmistakable, particularly to the Assad regime. What happens in Syria is vital to our national interest, for three reasons:

The first is the growth of extremism. We should never forget that the vast majority of people opposing the regime are ordinary people trying to defend their communities and gain freedom for their country. But Syria today has become the top destination for jihadists anywhere in the world, and we are already seeing a rise in sectarian violence and attacks using Improvised Explosive Devices including car bombs. We cannot allow Syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security.

Second, the crisis is undermining the peace of the region. On top of the refugee crisis, there have been reports of clashes on the Iraqi border and in Lebanon. We are increasingly concerned about the regime’s willingness to use chemical weapons. We have warned the Assad regime that the use of chemical weapons would lead to a serious response from the international community. Those who order the use of chemical weapons, and those who use them, will be held to account. There is also credible information that Iran is providing considerable military support to the regime through its Revolutionary Guard Corps, including personnel, equipment, weapons, and direct financial assistance.

Third, we and our allies must always be prepared to respond to situations of extreme humanitarian distress. Our foreign policy is inseparable from upholding human rights, protecting lives, and supporting international law. We must assist the genuine moderate and democratic forces in Syria who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community. The longer this conflict goes on, the more human suffering, persecution of minorities, radicalization and sectarian conflict there will be.

Despite these three compelling arguments there will still be those who say that Britain should have nothing to do with Syria.

But we cannot look the other way while international law and human rights are flouted.

We cannot step back from a crisis that could destabilize the heart of the Middle East.

And it would be the height of irresponsibility to ignore potential threats to our own security.

So I want to explain to the House today the next step in increasing our support to the Syrian people; and I emphasize that there may well have to be further steps.

We have contributed nearly £140 million in humanitarian aid so far. This is funding food, clean drinking water, medical assistance, blankets, and shelter for many tens of thousands of people. We are supporting the Syrian National Coalition’s own efforts to deliver aid inside Syria. And we will seek new ways to relieve the humanitarian crisis and to expand access for aid across the country, while preparing to help a future government deal with the aftermath of the conflict.

We have also committed a total of £9.4 million so far in non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition, civil society and human rights defenders, such as power generators and communications kit. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists. And we are providing satellite communication devices to document human rights violations and abuses.

I informed the House in January that we would seek to amend the European Union sanctions on Syria to open up the possibility of further assistance if the situation deteriorated.

On Thursday we finalized with our European partners a specific exemption to the EU sanctions, to permit the provision of non-lethal military equipment and all forms of technical assistance to the Syrian National Coalition where it is intended for the protection of civilians.

This is an important advance in our ability to support the opposition and help save lives.

Such technical assistance can include assistance, advice and training on how to maintain security in areas no longer controlled by the regime, on coordination between civilian and military councils, on how to protect civilians and minimize the risks to them, and how to maintain security during a transition.

We will now provide such assistance, advice and training.

We intend to respond to the opposition’s request to provide equipment for search and rescue operations, and incinerators and refuse collection kit to prevent the spread of disease. We will help local councils to access funds and equipment to repair electricity and water supplies to homes. And we will also respond to the opposition’s request for further water purification kits, and equipment to help civilian political leaders operate and communicate.

We will also now provide new types of non-lethal equipment for the protection of civilians, going beyond what we have given before. In conjunction with the National Coalition, we are identifying the protective equipment, which will be of most assistance to them, and likely to save most lives. I will keep the House updated, but it will certainly include, for instance, armored four-wheel drive vehicles to help opposition figures move around more freely, as well as personal protection equipment including body armor.

We will now also be able to provide testing equipment to the opposition to enable evidence gathering in the horrific event of chemical weapons use. And we will also fund training to help armed groups understand their responsibilities and obligations under international law and international human rights standards. Any human rights violations or abuses are unacceptable on all sides.

We have allocated nearly £3 million in funding this month to support this work, and an additional £10 million hereafter, comprising $20 million in non-lethal equipment and practical support for the Syrian opposition and civil society on top of the $60 million just announced by the United States. We hope other countries will offer similar assistance.

The Cabinet is in no doubt that this is a necessary, proportionate and lawful response to a situation of extreme humanitarian suffering, and that there is no practicable alternative. All our assistance will be carefully calibrated and monitored as well as legal, and will be aimed at saving life, alleviating this human catastrophe and supporting moderate groups.

The process of amending the EU sanctions regime in this way was difficult and the decision came down to the wire. We persisted with it because we believe that it is preferable to have a united EU approach. In our view if a political solution to the crisis in Syria is not found and the conflict continues, we and the rest of the European Union will have to be ready to move further, and we should not rule out any option for saving lives.

In the case that further necessary amendments to the EU sanctions regime prove impossible to agree, we stand ready to take any domestic measures necessary to ensure that core sanctions on Syria remain effective.

This is a situation in Syria where extreme humanitarian distress and growing dangers to international peace and security must weigh increasingly heavily in the balance against other risks.

With this crisis now becoming one of major dimensions by any standard, with millions of people on the move, many tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands more in daily danger of losing their lives, the world’s most volatile region in growing tension, and political deadlock that has endured for two years, our policy cannot be static nor our position indifferent.

A situation of growing gravity requires a steadily more active approach, learning the lessons of previous conflicts, and always emphasizing the need for a political and diplomatic resolution of the crisis, but crucially also being prepared to use increased pressure and levers to try to bring this about.

We will continue to keep the House properly informed as we press for an end to the conflict, provide life-saving assistance, and work to ensure that Syria has the political transition its people need and deserve and which they have now waited far too long to see achieved.

“Obama to receive Khatib and FSA chief of staff”

Clockwise from top left: Obama, Khatib, Mrs. Atassi and Idriss

President Barack Obama is reportedly expected to receive Syrian National Coalition leader Moaz al-Khatib and the Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army, Brig. Gen. Salim Idriss, on their visit to Washington next week.

Syrian American activist Farah Atassi, who broke the news on her Facebook page an hour ago, said both men will also confer with leading members of the U.S. Administration.

Mrs. Atassi is the founder and President of the Arab Information & Resource Center in Washington DC.

She is also executive director of the American Arab Communication & Translation Center (ACT), which provides international consultancy, translations, language services, research, media monitoring, strategic assessment and analysis to U.S. and Arab governments, NGOs and corporations.

The International Peace Federation at the United Nations nominated her as an Ambassador of Peace for her role in business diplomacy, and interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue.

Assad cedes provincial capital, is ambushed in Iraq

The ambush was near Akashat (center), inside Iraq, not far from the Syrian border (Map from Euronews)

The Damascus and Baghdad governments were dealt a spectacular body blow each yesterday.

In one blow to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government, Syrian militants scored one of the biggest gains of their two-year revolt by capturing the strategic northern city of Raqqa.

Situated on the highway to the major northeastern towns of Qamishli, al-Hasakah and Deir Ezzor, Raqqa is the first Syrian provincial capital to fall into opposition hands.

In another blow to Assad and his ally, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, 48 Syrian and nine Iraqi soldiers were killed in an ambush near Akashat, inside Iraq, not far from the Syrian border.

Iraqi officials said the Syrians had sought refuge through the Rabi’a border crossing in northern Iraq during recent clashes with rebels and were being escorted back home through a different crossing farther south when the ambush occurred.

The fact the Syrian soldiers were on Iraqi soil at all raised questions about Baghdad’s perceptible willingness to help Assad’s embattled regime by stealth.

Maliki told The Associated Press last week a victory for Syrian rebels would spark sectarian wars in Iraq and Lebanon (see my Feb. 28 post, “Iran proxies growl: Hands off Assad”).

“If truth be told,” political analyst Elias Harfouche writes today for the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat, “what risks destabilizing Iraq is its prime minister’s prejudiced meddling in the Syria crisis,” his corruption and his blackballing of Iraq’s Sunnites and Kurds.

Noting that this month marks the 10^th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Harfouche evokes the expression “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”

In the same vein, he says, you can rid a country of a tyrant, but you can’t turn it into a democracy if its regime balks at the concept.

To prove his point, Harfouche cites the case of Iraq, where he says Maliki’s “democracy” is worse than Saddam’s dictatorship. He also quotes from the first two of a six-part series on “today’s Iraq” penned by Patrick Cockburn for The Independent.

According to Cockburn:

Iraq is disintegrating as a country under the pressure of a mounting political, social and economic crisis, Iraqi leaders say.

They add that 10 years after the U.S, invasion and occupation the conflict between the three main communities – Shiite, Sunnite and Kurd – is deepening to a point just short of civil war...

The record of failure of post-Saddam governments, given the financial resources available, is astounding. One of the reasons many Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam in 2003, whatever their feelings about foreign occupation, was that they thought his successors would restore normal life after years of sanctions and war. To their astonishment and fury this has not happened, though Iraq now enjoys $100bn a year in oil revenues. In Baghdad there is scarcely a new civilian building to be seen and most of the new construction is heavily fortified police or military outposts. In Basra, at the heart of the oilfields, there are pools of sewage and heaps of uncollected rubbish in the streets on which herds of goats forage...

Theft of public money and incompetence on a gargantuan scale means the government fails to provide adequate electricity, clean water or sanitation. One-third of the labor force is unemployed and, when you include those under-employed, the figure is over half. Even those who do have a job have often obtained it by bribery...

The rule of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister since 2006, has become a near dictatorship with highly developed means of repression, such as secret prisons, and pervasive use of torture. He has sought to monopolize control over the army, intelligence service, government apparatus and budget, making sure that his supporters get the lion’s share of jobs and contracts...

As the pre-eminent leader of the Shiites, three-fifths of the population, he alarms them by suggesting that their political dominance is under threat from the Sunni, a fifth of Iraqis, once in charge under Saddam but now marginalized. Last year, Maliki sought to unite Sunnite and Shiite Arabs against the Kurds, another fifth of the population, by massing troops and threatening to invade Kurdish-controlled but disputed areas.

The Sunni had suffered shattering defeats with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the formation of a Shiite-Kurdish government and loss of the sectarian civil war. But the conflict in Syria marked a change for the better in Sunni fortunes. They have been emboldened by the bid for power of Syria’s Sunni majority just across the border from their own heartlands in Anbar and Nineveh provinces...

Maliki may employ a million men in different branches of the Iraqi security forces. In most countries this would guarantee government control, but in practice Maliki only has full authority in about half the national territory. He has no power in the northern third of the country held by the Kurds and increasingly limited influence in Sunni areas...

A few months before the invasion, an Iraqi civil servant secretly interviewed in Baghdad made a gloomy forecast. “The exiled Iraqis are the exact replica of those who currently govern us… with the sole difference that the latter are already satiated since they have been robbing us for the past 30 years,” he said. “Those who accompany the U.S. troops will be ravenous.”

Many of the Iraqis who came back to Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion were people of high principle who had sacrificed much as opponents of Saddam Hussein. But fast-forward 10 years and the prediction of the unnamed civil servant about the rapacity of Iraq’s new governors turns out to have been all too true. As one former minister puts it, “the Iraqi government is an institutionalized kleptocracy”…

Last week, Harfouche recalls, Maliki warned that a victory for the opposition in Syria would lead to “a civil war in Lebanon, divisions in Jordan and a sectarian conflict in Iraq.” His warning echoed Assad’s earlier threat – namely, that sparks from his regime’s fall would ignite the entire region.

Harfouche says the alarming trade-off being proposed is this: we [Assad and Maliki] shall keep the peace in Syria, Iraq and the entire region if you let us keep our sectarian hold on power in Damascus and Baghdad.

“If truth be told,” Harfouche writes, “what risks destabilizing Iraq is its prime minister’s prejudiced meddling in the Syria crisis and his piloting the de-structuring of Iraq through corruption and the exclusion of large numbers of Iraqi Sunnites and Kurds from public office and the decision-making process.

“The Americans can’t be blamed for backing Nouri al-Maliki’s rise to power. Nor are they supposed to crave for Iraq’s destiny more than Iraq’s prime minister.”

Looking for winners in Syria

Cynic says John Kerry is telling Moaz al-Khatib: "We'll supply the FSA with 1.5kg NIDO milk cans"

Forget scenes of Syrians scattered in neighboring countries and waiting for blankets and canned food.

Overlook images of internally displaced Syrians being hunted down by shells hitting their breadlines or missiles and barrel bombs burying them in basements or caves.

Disregard pictures of brutal practices by regime forces and of some grim operations by nonnative fighters.

In his weekly think-piece today, the editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat Ghassan Charbel says, “Forget all that and focus on a simple question: Who is winning in Syria?”

Charbel answers his own question as follows:

Syria-watchers recognize the Syrian regime put up fierce and exceptional resistance to rebel efforts to dislodge it either by peaceful or military means.

Unsurprisingly, that’s unlike the other regimes that were swept away by the so-called Arab Spring. The reason is that the Syrian regime has been building a political party and a military and security machine for the past 40 years. And unlike the regimes outwitted by the Arab Spring, [Alawite] people fanatical about their faith back the Syrian regime.

It is equally argued that defections got nowhere near the backbone of the regime’s military and security machine. But instead of the machine maintaining a tight grip on every span of Syrian territory, it is now sitting back in parts of it.

And the military and security machine’s capacity to pulverize the areas outside its control in no way proves its aptitude to win them back.

The Syrian army seriously ruined its credibility after using its arsenal internally and exposing its unending reliance on Iranian and Russian supply lines to continue fighting.

The army’s success in recapturing a township or a bypass is far from being a serious accomplishment. And nothing points to the Syrian army’s propensity to win the war and turn back the hands of time.

Examining the Baath Party status does not require due diligence and analysis. The party that monopolized the leadership of the state and society is dead.

It was buried when the regime announced its own reform measures. And Syria’s Baath can’t even emulate its counterpart in Iraq, which can at least claim to have been brought down by foreign intervention.

The opposition can say it made massive sacrifices and noticeable advances on the ground, except that a decisive win remains beyond its reach.

Also, the successes of Jabhat al-Nusra may yet prove taxing. One of the army’s first tasks in a changed Syria – if there is one – will be to write off the successes of al-Nusra and of the other roving fighters.

Much is said about Russia recouping its clout and imposing itself as the compulsory doorway to a solution. But despite Russia’s role in and outside the UN Security Council, Iran remains the Number One player in Syria. Moreover, it is impossible for any solution in Syria to uphold Moscow’s status ante the outbreak of the Syrian revolution.

Much is also written about Iran preventing the Syrian regime’s fall and about the lack of a solution without Tehran’s approval. But here again, Iran won’t possibly be comfortable in a post-solution Syria as it is with the current regime. The implication is that Iran is now on a damage limitation mission.

And since Iran’s backing of the Syrian regime effectively stoked the fire of a Sunni-Shiite conflict in the region, you can safely say Iran is not winning.

Despite the differences, the same can be said of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The party can help prevent or delay the regime’s fall, but only at a very high cost for Lebanon, which lately joined the Sunni-Shiite fray in Syria. Part of the very high cost will also be borne by Hezbollah proper in terms of its sect’s relations with Lebanon and Syria’s Sunni communities.

Ditto for Iraq in light of the [pro-Syrian regime] stance taken by the Nouri al-Maliki government.

America too can’t claim to be winning in Syria.

The Syrian tragedy exposed the shortcomings of America’s role under Barack Obama. It exposed Obama’s America as being tired, enfeebled and hesitant, though justifiably shunning reckless policies.

You can say we are in the midst of a regional civil war -- a protracted and destructive conflict. That’s why the talk about limited, sketchy and uncertain gains.

Chances of negotiations are extremely low. Changing the power balance would require a torrent of military aid and rivers of blood.

The sure thing is that the Syria we knew two years ago is forever gone.

Moaz al-Khatib’s walkabout in Aleppo Governorate

Khatib being greeted by townspeople on the streets of Manbij

Syrian National Coalition leader Moaz al-Khatib today visited rebel-held areas in Aleppo Governorate to strengthen ties between the main opposition and rebel fighters on the ground.

Khatib entered northern Syria from Turkey and toured the towns of Manbij and Jerablus.

His visit came on the day rebels captured large parts of a Syrian police academy near Aleppo city, after a fierce battle resulting in heavy loss of life.

Almost 200 fighters had been killed on both sides over eight days, according to the UK-based activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

In other developments:

-- The Syrian National Coalition said in a statement “massive” assaults had been launched by regime forces against the central city of Homs and the strategic Damascus suburb of Darayya, which is held by the rebels.

-- Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague dubbed Bashar al-Assad “delusional” after the Syrian president told The Sunday Times in an interview it was "nonsense to suggest" that the conflict was about his future as leader. Hague responded by telling the BBC: "This will go down as one of the most delusional interviews that any national leader has given in modern times.”

Iraq enters the Syria fray to help Assad

The Iraqi army is said to be shelling Free Syrian Army (FSA) positions inside Syria near the border with Iraq.

After helping Syrian government forces regain control of the Iraq-Syria al-Ya’robia border crossing from Syrian rebel forces overnight, Iraqi artillery is at this writing pounding FSA forces in al-Hasakah governorate in the far northeastern corner of Syria.

Hasan Sari, a respected Jordanian commentator on Middle East affairs, global activist, filmmaker and founder of CIFF, reports on his Twitter account, “Hasakah in Syria is under heavy Iraqi artillery shelling now. [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki is waging war on FSA.”

Maliki and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah – both Shiites and unabashed surrogates of Shiite Iran – openly warned this week of regional sectarian conflict if Syria’s quasi-Shiite President Bashar al-Assad is ousted (see my earlier post, “Iran proxies growl: Hands off Assad.”)

Manaf Tlass goes back to the grind in Moscow

Elena Suponina photo of Manaf Tlass in Moscow

Brig. Gen. Manaf Tlass, Syria’s most prominent military defector and a former buddy of President Bashar al-Assad, is in Moscow for surprise talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and then with Lavrov’s deputy Mikhail Bogdanov.

Though Tlass is a Sunni Muslim, he commanded an elite unit of the Republican Guard, which is about 80 percent Alawite, the ethnic minority from which Assad and his inner circle are drawn.

The general's father, Mustafa Tlass, was Syria's longest serving defense minister, who helped to ensure Assad’s succession to the presidency in 2000 following the death of his father Hafez.

In announcing news of his impending talks with Lavrov, Voice of Russia describes Manaf Tlass as “one of Syria's most influential opposition leaders.”

It says he arrived in Moscow “recently” from Paris, where he set up home after his getaway from Syria last July.

According to Voice of Russia, powerbrokers pin “special hopes” on the general mediating between the warring sides and playing a key role in a Syria power transition.

“Gen. Manaf Tlass does not like to give interviews, and now during his visit to Moscow he is in no hurry to talk to the press. Nevertheless, he agreed to answer the questions of Elena Suponina, a political correspondent of the Voice of Russia”:

General Manaf Tlass, what is the purpose of your current visit to Moscow?

The purpose of my visit to Moscow is to help find a solution to the Syrian crisis. The bloodshed in Syria must be stopped. This vicious circle of violence needs to be broken. Russia’s political weight is great enough to help find the solution. And the solution lies in dialogue replacing continuation of the standoff.

What specifically is required of Russia?

Russia can help preserve Syria as a state. I mean its unity, its complex structure with all the ethnic and religious minorities, its infrastructure and secular nature. The state and the regime are not the same thing. We need to save the Syrian state, but not the ruling regime. One must presume that helping to preserve Syria as a state is possible only by disassociating oneself from the current regime.

The regime is trying to present the situation like there is supposedly no alternative to it other than the religious extremists or anarchy. We are saying that there is an alternative. There is a third side in Syria, which is not associated with the regime or the extremists. The majority of the Syrian people do not want to choose between these two extremes, but want to build their lives in a stable and safe country. And Russia could support the moderate forces in Syria, those who favor the happy medium.

A few days ago during his visit to Moscow, Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem for the first time made some important statements about his government's readiness to start a dialogue with the opposition. What is your attitude to that?

I don't trust such statements. I very well know Syria's government structure from the inside. And I well remember during the entire crisis the government made repeated promises that gave hope but never fulfilled them. There has been too much lying from that government for us to believe it now.

In any case, there is the key precondition for the beginning of the dialogue – it is ceasefire in Syria. The warplanes need to stop bombing. The missile strikes need to cease. Look – recently Scud missiles at the government’s disposal attacked the city of Aleppo. I want to express my condolences to the residents of that city that were hurt, as well as to residents of the other attacked cities. What kind of dialogue can there be when the attacks continue?

How can a ceasefire be reached?

I believe this can happen under the auspices of the Russian-American cooperation and, of course, under the auspices of the United Nations Organization. The parties to the conflict cannot be guarantors of the ceasefire, and the regime even less so. The leading powers of the world can act as such guarantors.

But a part of the opposition is also opposed to the dialogue with the representatives of the government. What is your view on that?

The opposition is for democracy, which means that there can be and must be different opinions. But there are some points that everybody agrees upon. All opposition members want this regime to leave. And at the same time all opposition forces want the killing in Syria to stop, they want the bloodshed to stop.