The Syrian revolution and the situations and events related to it are witnessing successive developments. That is because the revolution in Syria is foremost on the American political agenda and the top of its scale of priorities. This is clear from the fact that it represents John Kerry’s number one preoccupation and the centre of his communications, movements and statements. This is whilst the other issues have been relatively pushed to the side in terms of his concern and this is not a matter that is specific to America alone as the Syrian revolution has generally imposed itself over the global issues. The Syrian revolution has transformed from representing a threat to the American influence within the Middle East to representing a threat to the West and its interests in the region as a whole. For that reason, it was only natural for the Syrian revolution to occupy the highest position in the work timetable of the Munich security conference. This is in addition to America’s attempt to make use of the international meetings to pass through and impose its will and agenda to come out with the mould of an international understanding.
Despite America having refused for any western state to have a role in Syria since the beginning of the revolution and then brought Russia in to use it to play the role of the negotiator and opposition in order for the door to be shut in front of Europe from one angle and to impose its agenda from another angle, despite that, America has brought these states to the meetings in order to act as false witnesses in order to ensure the international cover for what it wants to do. It is also to silence these states by allowing them to participate and even if it is only by appearance. That is because these states have been burnt by the effects of the events in Syria and specifically that which relates to the issue of refugees in addition to the ‘terrorism’ issue.
Even though the Munich Conference for security is an international event in terms of attendance and participation, it is not however a conference with an official standing in respect to the issuing of resolutions or official statements. It is a private conference and not a government one whilst most of what normally happens in it is limited to discussions and the provision of some recommendations alone. However, due to the developments in Syria and in particular the vicious military attack upon Halab (Aleppo) undertaken by the Assad regime and militias supporting him with intensive Russian air cover utilising a scorched earth style, which has led to the fleeing of tens of thousands of civilians, America imposed the issuing of what was called the ‘Munich Statement’ or the Munich understandings with Russian participation.
This Munich statement carried within it a reformulation of the Security Council resolution 2254. It was mentioned on Jazeera.net on 12/02/16 that: “The American Secretary of State John Kerry announced the reaching of an agreement to halt the acts of aggression in Syria within a week. Kerry said – in a joint press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and United Nations Envoy De Mistura in Munich – that the agreement to halt the violence and acts of aggression did not include the ISIS organisation and Jubhat An-Nusrah… This is whilst Lavrov reiterated that the end of aggressive acts would be preceded by preparing the framework for a ceasefire. Kerry also revealed the formation of a working group to develop the paths of work in the long-run to stop the acts of aggression… And he reaffirmed that aid will reach Deir az-Zor, Fou’ah, Kafriya, Madaya and Ma’damiya in addition to all of the areas under siege or are hard to reach. In this context Lavrov spoke about dropping aid in some of these areas by air…”. And in the ‘Russia Today’ news service on 12/02/16 the following was reported: “The Syrian support group adopted in its meeting in Munich a statement that mentions a ceasefire, solving the humanitarian issues, launching the political process in Syria and the running of elections within 18 months… the members of the international group agreed to reach after six months from the start of the Syrian negotiations an agreement in respect to political reforms and the formation of a transitional government. In addition to the ‘Launching of a process to put down a new constitution and in accordance to it hold free and just elections at a date the latest of which is 18 months’. Despite that, the statement did not demand that Damascus or the Syrian opposition commit to a particular date to return to the negotiations and it called: ‘All parties’ to participate in the negotiations under the supervision of the UN within ‘the quickly as possible’…”.
It is evident that what was mentioned in Munich represents a repetition of what came in the Security Council Resolution 2254, however, what caught the attention in accordance to what was reported about the text of the statement in the ‘Russia Today’ report, was the statement’s utilisation of the expression ‘the formation of a transitional government’ whilst the Security Council text stated ‘a transitional ruling body’. In addition, the wording ‘transitional government’ quoted by Kerry when he met Riyad Hijaab prior to the Geneva 3 conference when he informed him that there will be a government of national unity in Syria and not a transitional ruling body. The following was mentioned in the ‘Mufakkarah Al-Islaam’ news source on 25/01/16: “…The source added that Kerry informed Hijab that the Geneva meeting will discuss the formation of a government of national unity, made up of the regime and the revolutionaries, and not a transitional ruling body possessing executive powers. Kerry also made clear that: ‘There is no timetable for Bashar to leave and that it is his right to stand in the forthcoming elections’”. Consequently, the Munich statement brought about an adjustment to the Resolution 2254 or shed light upon America’s intentions and what it wants in respect to the application of the Resolution 2254 in relation to the band about the transitional ruling body.
As for what is related to the halting of the acts of aggression then this will not change a thing in respect to the reality of the military actions. That is because the exemption of the ISIS organisation and Jubhat An-Nusrah means that the acts of bombing and destruction will continue under the pretext of fighting terrorism and this is whilst Russia in origin claims that it does not bomb anything other than ‘terrorism’!
Just as America is in need of Russia to complete its task of returning the regime’s authority over Halab (Aleppo), America has also undertaken bombing of Halab itself. Reuters reported on 11/02/16 that: “The Russian Defence Ministry said on Thursday that two American aircraft bombed the Syrian city of Halab (Aleppo) on the 10th of February and that the Russian aircraft had not been operating in that region. The spokesman for the American Department of Defence accused the Russian forces and the Syrian government forces on Wednesday of destroying two main hospitals in Aleppo by airstrikes even if it did not specify when these strikes took place… However, the spokesman of the Russian Defence Ministry Igor Konashinkov said in a statement: “No one circled above the city yesterday apart from the planes of the anti ISIS coalition” pointing to the coalition led by the US of the states that are fighting the ISIS organisation. And he followed his statement by saying: “At 13:55 Moscow time two planes from the American Military Airforce of the F-10 make entered Syrian airspace from Turkish land and reached Aleppo through the nearest direct route and then undertook two strikes against targets inside Aleppo”. He added that the Russian strikes on that day had been at least 20km away from the city. And when asked on Wednesday whether the coalition led by Washington will exert more efforts to assist the opposition fighters in Halab (Aleppo) or improve the opportunities for the arrival of humanitarian assistance to the city the spokesman of the US Department of Defence Colonel Steve Warren said that the focus of the coalition still remains set upon fighting the ISIS organisation and that it has “No real presence in that region of Syria”…”
This all indicates that America is in a hurry to finish the battle for Halab in favour of the regime just as it is not bothered if the whole of Halab is emptied of all of its inhabitants as it wants a city that is free of disturbances to Asad’s regime.
As for the stance of what is called the ‘high body for negotiations’ and what was mentioned upon the tongue of Riyad Hijab, the head of the body, then this represents no more than a manufactured heroism and a form of marketing for the negotiating body amongst the armed opposition groups. The following was reported in the ‘Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed’ website on 13/02/16: “A leader in the Free Syrian army disclosed that the armed Syrian opposition groups will hold a meeting with Riyad Hijab the coordinator of the negotiating body to discuss the Munich agreement resulting from the International Group for Syria meeting held on the side lines of the Munich conference on security and defence policies. And early Friday morning, a leader who preferred to keep his identity hidden, refused in a statement provided to ‘Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed’ to delve into the details of what will be discussed in the meeting that will be held ‘very soon’ preferring that a unified position from the groups and the negotiating body will be issued in respect to the Munich agreement”.
This coordination in respect to the stance and position amongst the armed groups and between what has been called the high negotiating body gains for the body a representative legitimacy that will facilitate America later to pass through the results of the diplomatic solution that it will provide the details for to fit with the measure and standard of the criminal Assad regime.
We ask Allah سبحانه وتعالى to protect the revolution of Ash-Shaam from the plots of the disbelievers (Kuffar) and their agents and to hasten for us the victory and its consolidation!
Abdullah Mahmoud
Written for Ar-Rayah Newspaper Issue 65