Jenderal AS Memperingatkan Perang Luas di Timteng
Mantan komandan militer NATO memperingatkan bahwa konflik di Suriah dan Irak bisa menyebar ke wilayah yang lebih luas di Timur Tengah, seperti perang agama di Eropa pada abad 16 dan 17.
Menurut laporan IRNA, Kamis (23/1), Jendera James Stavridis mengatakan bahwa meskipun Suriah dan Irak adalah pusat konflik saat ini, tapi Lebanon dan negara-negara terdekat lainnya bisa dengan mudah terseret ke perang. Menurutnya, konflik itu juga merupakan ancaman keamanan langsung ke Eropa.
Peringatan Stavridis dikeluarkan mengingat militan Negara Islam Irak dan Mediterania Timur (ISIL) sedang bertempur untuk mendirikan Imarah Islam di timur Suriah dan barat Irak.
Kelompok yang berafiliasi dengan Al Qaeda itu telah menjadi sumber utama terorisme di kedua negara tersebut.
Stavridis menuturkan, pertikaian memiliki potensi untuk dengan cepat menyebar ke negara-negara tetangga dan kemudian lebih jauh lagi.
"Kondisi itu akan menciptakan konflik terbuka yang menyebar ke berbagai negara anggota NATO di Eropa dan sekutu di kawasan, termasuk Arab Saudi, Yordania dan Israel," kata jenderal Amerika itu.
"NATO dapat memainkan peran jika diberi wewenang dalam pemeliharaan perdamaian, tapi kami masih jauh dari itu," tambahnya.
Stavridis adalah Laksamana Angkatan Laut pertama yang menjabat sebagai pejabat tinggi militer NATO. Dengan demikian, tanggung jawabnya mencakup perang di Afghanistan, serangan udara di Libya, operasi di Balkan dan patroli anti-pembajakan di lepas pantai Somalia. (IRIB Indonesia/RM)
| Tuesday 21 January 2014 22:28 |
AS Tidak Serius Mengenai Perdamaian Suriah
IslamTimes
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcgyw9wzak9tn4.1ira.html
Seorang Jurnalis investigasi Gareth Porter mengatakan, tekanan
Washington pada PBB untuk menarik undangan Iran pada sebuah konferensi
perdamaian Suriah menunjukkan kurangnya keseriusan AS mengenai
perdamaian Suriah.
|
Seorang Jurnalis investigasi Gareth Porter mengatakan, tekanan Washington pada PBB untuk menarik undangan Iran pada sebuah konferensi perdamaian Suriah menunjukkan kurangnya keseriusan AS mengenai perdamaian Suriah.
Dengan menekan PBB untuk menarik undangan partisipasi Iran dalam konferensi internasional mengenai Suriah, AS terbukti tidak serius dalam isu perdamaian Suriah, kata Porter dalam sebuah wawancara telepon dengan Press TV pada hari Selasa 21/1/14.
Sebelumnya, pada hari Minggu, Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki -moon mengatakan bahwa ia telah mengundang Iran untuk berpartisipasi dalam pembicaraan damai Suriah pada 22 Januari di Montreux, Swiss.
"Seperti yang telah saya katakan berulang kali, saya sangat percaya bahwa Iran harus menjadi bagian dari solusi untuk krisis Suriah, " kata Ban.
Namun, PBB telah menarik undangannya kepada Teheran di bawah tekanan dari Washington.
Berbicara dalam sebuah konferensi pers di markas PBB, New York hari Senin (20/1/14), juru bicara PBB, Martin Nesirky mengatakan Ban sangat kecewa karena Iran menolak komunike Jenewa Juni 2012.
"Mengingat bahwa Iran memilih tetap berada di luar pemahaman dasar, dia [Ban] memutuskan pertemuan satu hari Montreux akan dilaksanakan tanpa partisipasi Iran," tambah Nesirky.(IT/TGM)
Pengamat: Solusi Krisis Suriah Memotong Sumber Dana Takfiri
Islam
Times- http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcfcjdm0w6dj0a.,8iw.html
Menurutnya, Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki-moon, yang meresmikan
konferensi Jenewa II, tidak kompeten untuk menjalankan badan
internasional itu dan menggambarkannya sebagai boneka AS dan NATO.
takfiri
Sejarawan AS mengatakan satu-satunya solusi untuk mengatasi krisis yang sedang berlangsung di Suriah adalah memotong bantuan keuangan dan militer kepada militan ke negara tersebut, demikian Press TV melaporkan.
"Satu-satunya solusi di sini adalah pasukan pembunuh dan pemberontak teroris di Suriah, menunjukkan kepada mereka pintu keluar. . . menyingkirkannya dan memotong dukungan mereka," kata Webster Griffin Tarpley kepada Press TV dalam sebuah wawancara pada hari Kamis, 23/01/14.
Pernyataan Tarpley itu diutarakan saat berlangsung pembicaraan damai yang disponsori PBB mengenai krisis di Suriah yang dimulai pada hari Rabu di kota Montreux, Swiss.
"Jika Anda bisa mengamankan hal yang ada tersebut, termasuk pemulangan para "pejuang" asing, pemotongan pendaaan dan senjata dari Arab Saudi dan Qatar dan Uni Emirat Arab, hal ini sudah menempatkan seluruh masalah dalam format managemen," kata sejarawan itu.
Tarpley juga mengatakan rakyat Suriah dan kelompok-kelompok di dalam negeri harus melakukan dialog mengenai krisis di negara itu, bukan Libya, bukan Saudi, bukan Chechen, bukan orang-orang dari Waziristan, atau dari tempat lain.
Menurutnya, Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki-moon, yang meresmikan konferensi Jenewa II, tidak kompeten untuk menjalankan badan internasional itu dan menggambarkannya sebagai boneka AS dan NATO.
Pada hari Rabu, Duta Besar Suriah untuk PBB Bashar al- Jaafari mengatakan, adalah mustahil untuk mencapai penyelesaian politik dengan para teroris yang melawan pemerintah Suriah.
Menlu Suriah: Memerangi Terorisme Harus Jadi Prioritas Pembicaraan
Islam
Times -
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcbgabfarhbaap.qnur.html
Muallem mengatakan pada hari Rabu (22/1/14) bahwa memerangi
terorisme akan membuka jalan dimulainya sebuah proses politik, kantor
berita resmi SANA melaporkan.
Walid al-Muallem- Syrian Foreign Minister
Menteri Luar Negeri Suriah, Walid al Muallem mengatakan bahwa
memerangi terorisme harus menjadi prioritas dalam Konferensi Jenewa 2.
Muallem mengatakan pada hari Rabu (22/1/14) bahwa memerangi terorisme akan membuka jalan dimulainya sebuah proses politik, kantor berita resmi SANA melaporkan.
Konferensi ini dimulai hari Rabu pagi (22/1/14) di kota Montreux, Swiss dalam upaya menemukan solusi diplomatik untuk krisis di Suriah.
Menteri Luar Negeri Suriah itu juga menolak Koalisi Nasional Suriah (SNC) dukungan Barat dan menekankan bahwa badan itu tak mewakili oposisi Suriah.
SNC dan pendukung Barat-nya, termasuk Amerika Serikat, bersikeras bahwa Presiden Bashar al-Assad harus mundur dan pemerintahan transisi harus segera dibentuk.
Menteri Luar Negeri AS, John Kerry dalam konferensi itu juga bahwa tidak ada ruang bagi Assad dalam pemerintahan mendatang di Suriah.
Muallem membantah pernyataan itu dalam pidatonya dan menegaskan, "Tak seorang pun di dunia berhak memberi atau menarik legitimasi presiden, konstitusi atau hukum, kecuali rakyat Suriah sendiri."
Muallem juga menyatakan penyesalannya bahwa beberapa negara yang tangannya berlumuran darah rakyat Suriah ikut hadir dalam konferensi internasional itu.
Suriah dicengkeram krisis maut sejak Maret 2011. Menurut PBB, 100.000 lebih warga tewas dan jutaan lainnya terpaksa mengungsi karena kekerasan yang melanda negara mereka.[IT/r]
Muallem mengatakan pada hari Rabu (22/1/14) bahwa memerangi terorisme akan membuka jalan dimulainya sebuah proses politik, kantor berita resmi SANA melaporkan.
Konferensi ini dimulai hari Rabu pagi (22/1/14) di kota Montreux, Swiss dalam upaya menemukan solusi diplomatik untuk krisis di Suriah.
Menteri Luar Negeri Suriah itu juga menolak Koalisi Nasional Suriah (SNC) dukungan Barat dan menekankan bahwa badan itu tak mewakili oposisi Suriah.
SNC dan pendukung Barat-nya, termasuk Amerika Serikat, bersikeras bahwa Presiden Bashar al-Assad harus mundur dan pemerintahan transisi harus segera dibentuk.
Menteri Luar Negeri AS, John Kerry dalam konferensi itu juga bahwa tidak ada ruang bagi Assad dalam pemerintahan mendatang di Suriah.
Muallem membantah pernyataan itu dalam pidatonya dan menegaskan, "Tak seorang pun di dunia berhak memberi atau menarik legitimasi presiden, konstitusi atau hukum, kecuali rakyat Suriah sendiri."
Muallem juga menyatakan penyesalannya bahwa beberapa negara yang tangannya berlumuran darah rakyat Suriah ikut hadir dalam konferensi internasional itu.
Suriah dicengkeram krisis maut sejak Maret 2011. Menurut PBB, 100.000 lebih warga tewas dan jutaan lainnya terpaksa mengungsi karena kekerasan yang melanda negara mereka.[IT/r]
Suriah: "Saudi dan Turki Memimpin Perang di Suriah"
Islam
Times-
http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcfxjdmxw6dj0a.,8iw.html
Shaaban menekankan, pernyataan Muallem itu benar-benar sesuai
dengan arah dan pembentukan kembali integritas wilayah Suriah serta
mereformasi persatuan di antara bangsa.
Bouthaina Shaaban
Pejabat sekaligus penasehat Presiden Suriah untuk Media, Bouthaina Shaaban dalam sebuah pernyataan menyebut, Arab Saudi dan Turki merupakan pendukung utama kelompok-kelompok militan dukungan asing di Suriah dan menekankan, sikap dari sebagian besar negara Eropa berubah terhadap krisis Suriah saat ini.
Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan The Voice of Russia, pada Kamis, 23/01/14, Shaaban mengatakan sesuai negosiasi yang dilakukan antara Menteri Luar Negeri Suriah Walid Muallem dan kepala kebijakan luar negeri Uni Eropa Catherine Ashton, tampaknya sikap baru yang diadopsi oleh sebagian besar anggota Uni Eropa masuk akal dan dapat diterima oleh pemerintah Suriah.
Mengacu pada pernyataan yang dikatakan oleh Muallem dalam konferensi Jenewa II, Shaaban mengatakan pernyataan Muallem benar-benar terpancar dari kehendak nyata bangsa Suriah.
Sementara pemerintah Suriah menerima secara serius untuk berpartisipasi dalam konferensi tersebut, tetapi Suriah harus mempertimbangkan kembali fakta bahwa gangguan dari pemerintah Barat serta beberapa rezim Arab tidak akan membawa hasil apa-apa kecuali kehancuran total Suriah.
Shaaban menekankan, pernyataan Muallem itu benar-benar sesuai dengan arah dan pembentukan kembali integritas wilayah Suriah serta mereformasi persatuan di antara bangsa.
Ditekankannya, beberapa rezim asing benar-benar dikenal karena sikap permusuhan yang jelas dan kebencian mereka terhadap Suriah, dan banyak warga Suriah yang tahu bahwa negaranya terkena konspirasi asing. [IT/Onh/Ass]
Konferensi Jenewa 2
Menteri Luar Negeri China Wang Yi memperingatkan semua pihak yang
terlibat dalam konferensi perdamaian Suriah dan menyebut bahwa
legitimasi presiden atau pemerintah tidak bisa dibantah dan diganggu
gugat.
"Tak seorang pun di dunia ini memiliki hak untuk menarik legitimasi dari presiden atau pemerintah ... selain Suriah sendiri," kata Wang kepada wartawan di sela-sela konferensi perdamaian Suriah di Montreux, Swiss, Rabu, 22/01/14, al-Alam melaporkan.
Dikatakannya, pembicaraan harus dimulai dengan mengatasi masalah yang paling mudah dan kemudian pindah ke yang lebih sulit.
Wang lebih lanjut menyebut, pada awal pembicaraan damai, masyarakat internasional harus mendorong kedua belah pihak untuk membentuk kerangka kerja yang menetapkan arah dan prinsip-prinsip negosiasi.
"Mereka seharusnya sejak awal tidak menjerumuskan diri dalam argumentasi atau perdebatan tentang isu-isu posisi mereka cukup jauh," katanya.
Wang mengatakan kedua belah pihak harus berusaha membentuk kesepakatan awal untuk membangun kepercayaan diri, seperti pelepasan tahanan, gencatan senjata lokal dan kerjasama kemanusiaan.
Mediator internasional Lakhdar Brahimi juga mengatakan, kedua belah pihak mungkin siap untuk mengambil langkah-langkah tersebut.
Ketika ditanya tentang kemungkinan resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB pada akses kemanusiaan, Wang mengatakan China mengaku sangat bersimpati pada penderitaan 2,4 juta pengungsi Suriah, tetapi akan salah jika mempolitisasi isu kemanusiaan tersebut.
"Saat ini proses memberikan bantuan kemanusiaan berjalan mulus, secara umum. Saya percaya tidak ada kesulitan atau hambatan yang dapat diatasi dalam proses pelaksanaan bantuan kemanusiaan". Tandasnya. [IT/Onh/Ass]
China: "Legitimasi Presiden Suriah Tidak Bisa Dibantah"
Islam
Times- http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcgtt9wuak9tx4.1ira.html
"Tak seorang pun di dunia ini memiliki hak untuk menarik
legitimasi dari presiden atau pemerintah ... selain Suriah sendiri,"
Menteri Luar Negeri China Wang Yi
"Tak seorang pun di dunia ini memiliki hak untuk menarik legitimasi dari presiden atau pemerintah ... selain Suriah sendiri," kata Wang kepada wartawan di sela-sela konferensi perdamaian Suriah di Montreux, Swiss, Rabu, 22/01/14, al-Alam melaporkan.
Dikatakannya, pembicaraan harus dimulai dengan mengatasi masalah yang paling mudah dan kemudian pindah ke yang lebih sulit.
Wang lebih lanjut menyebut, pada awal pembicaraan damai, masyarakat internasional harus mendorong kedua belah pihak untuk membentuk kerangka kerja yang menetapkan arah dan prinsip-prinsip negosiasi.
"Mereka seharusnya sejak awal tidak menjerumuskan diri dalam argumentasi atau perdebatan tentang isu-isu posisi mereka cukup jauh," katanya.
Wang mengatakan kedua belah pihak harus berusaha membentuk kesepakatan awal untuk membangun kepercayaan diri, seperti pelepasan tahanan, gencatan senjata lokal dan kerjasama kemanusiaan.
Mediator internasional Lakhdar Brahimi juga mengatakan, kedua belah pihak mungkin siap untuk mengambil langkah-langkah tersebut.
Ketika ditanya tentang kemungkinan resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB pada akses kemanusiaan, Wang mengatakan China mengaku sangat bersimpati pada penderitaan 2,4 juta pengungsi Suriah, tetapi akan salah jika mempolitisasi isu kemanusiaan tersebut.
"Saat ini proses memberikan bantuan kemanusiaan berjalan mulus, secara umum. Saya percaya tidak ada kesulitan atau hambatan yang dapat diatasi dalam proses pelaksanaan bantuan kemanusiaan". Tandasnya. [IT/Onh/Ass]
This Is How Geneva II Will Fail
Syria's
Foreign Minister and head of the Syrian government delegation Walid
Muallem, speaks during peace talks of the so-called Geneva II conference
in Montreux on January 22, 2014. (Photo: AFP).
Everything was arranged so that Geneva II would fail. Failure
is necessary because the conditions for reaching a political settlement
are not yet ripe; the regime finds itself stronger on the ground and
more united than the opposition. Failure is necessary because the
opposition was unable to put together a team including all its factions.
The main goal of the Geneva II conference is its failure. After Geneva II, the Syrian regime can say it reached out to the opposition but the Syrian National Coalition foiled the peace conference, and it will have to carry on with military operations. The coalition, for its part, can use the regime’s refusal to discuss the question of President Bashar al-Assad stepping down and the establishment of a transitional body. It will then withdraw from the conference and end this charade.
The first scene of this play included the televised speeches of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem and Syrian National Coalition head Ahmad Jarba.
Now let’s imagine the second scene: The two delegations enter the negotiating room and sit at different tables, separated by the table of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. Just like a theater director, Brahimi recites his opening remarks, asking both sides to consider what their people are going through. He calls on them to look for a solution to end the fighting. He pleads with them to use diplomatic language to help find a solution. He tries to say there are shared points of agreement. He insists that everyone is eager to save Syria, then he ends the session and draws the curtains.
The main goal of the Geneva II conference is its failure. After Geneva II, the Syrian regime can say it reached out to the opposition but the Syrian National Coalition foiled the peace conference, and it will have to carry on with military operations. The coalition, for its part, can use the regime’s refusal to discuss the question of President Bashar al-Assad stepping down and the establishment of a transitional body. It will then withdraw from the conference and end this charade.
The first scene of this play included the televised speeches of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem and Syrian National Coalition head Ahmad Jarba.
Now let’s imagine the second scene: The two delegations enter the negotiating room and sit at different tables, separated by the table of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. Just like a theater director, Brahimi recites his opening remarks, asking both sides to consider what their people are going through. He calls on them to look for a solution to end the fighting. He pleads with them to use diplomatic language to help find a solution. He tries to say there are shared points of agreement. He insists that everyone is eager to save Syria, then he ends the session and draws the curtains.
Until late last night, the
details of the second scene were still not clear. Will the two sides
resume negotiations in the same room or in two separate rooms? The
atmosphere remained highly pessimistic. The National Coalition
delegation said they do not want to sit in the same room with the regime
delegation, especially after Moallem’s opening speech. Brahimi
suggested seating them in separate rooms to convey the different points
of view. If this round of negotiations leads to something tangible, then
he will reunite them in one room. The question will be decided tomorrow
morning.
In the first scene, Moallem stole the limelight. What will he come up with this time? The head of Syrian diplomacy will not even address the coalition delegation directly; he addresses Brahimi, who then tells the opposition what was said, word for word, or perhaps he summarizes a bit. This is a difficult and complicated process under normal circumstances, let alone when the Syrian foreign minister is the one speaking. It is no longer a secret that Moallem will focus on the priority of combatting terrorism. He will not accept any discussion of transferring powers, creating a transitional body, or of Assad stepping down. That, however, is unacceptable to the National Coalition delegation.
Then comes the opposition’s turn. The speaker will repeat that the priority is for Assad to step down. Yesterday, Jarba paved the way for this position during his press conference. He said in no uncertain terms: “The Assad regime cannot stay. It has become an image of the past representing the era of black and white.” He spoke and then left Geneva.
There are no shades of gray in these negotiations. Herein lies the knot of this play that will lead to its failure. Either black or white, both sides will dig in their heels.
Some people will continue to invoke a certain level of optimism. A UN official says, for example, that negotiations are always difficult at the beginning. He recounts how he personally participated in more difficult negotiations where the parties would come to the negotiating table carrying arms. He also says that both sides typically vent at the beginning of negotiations. This is normal, he stresses, but in the end, the mediator finds shared points of agreement to build upon. The role of UN officials is to be optimistic, but this time, the truth is somewhere else.
The truth is, everything was arranged so that Geneva II would fail. Failure is necessary because the conditions for reaching a political settlement are not yet ripe; the regime finds itself stronger on the ground and more united than the opposition. Failure is necessary because the opposition was unable to put together a team including all its factions.
It does not matter how the curtain will come down on Geneva II. What matters is what will happen after this masquerade. Will the fighting continue in Syria, or will the path be paved for Geneva III, under better circumstances, where everyone will attend, including Iran?
Information also revealed that, during the meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council on January 20, the question of inviting Iran was discussed in depth. A number of European countries were in favor of inviting the Islamic Republic on the grounds that after its nuclear deal with the West, it could play a constructive role.
When certain foreign ministers raised the question of the coalition’s response to the invitation, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, “Don’t worry, I have contacted the UN, and we are in the process of addressing the problem.” Some European foreign ministers supported him while others opposed him, but in the end, the Europeans agree that the central issue with Iran is the nuclear question, whereas the Syrian issue is to be handled by the United States and Russia.
Europe seems lost when dealing with Syria. France raises the banner of Assad stepping down. But the Syrian regime is no longer worried about this issue. They say they can simply buy tickets for the European terrorists in their custody and return them to Europe. The possibility is not a joke.
Some in Europe have opened a direct line with Syria while others prefer to deal with Iran. In UN hallways, a visitor hears something else about rescinding the invitation to Iran. There is some sort of behind-the-scenes compromise reached through an Iranian-Russian agreement.
Iran was not enthusiastic about attending Geneva II in the first place. Perhaps it knew in advance that it would not lead anywhere. It is rumored that it deliberately refused to commit to Geneva I, which observes the transfer of presidential and security powers to a transitional body. It knew beforehand that holding on to this position means rejecting its presence at the conference. Not attending gives it more freedom of movement in the next phase to help its Syrian ally.
Moscow was only vexed over rescinding Iran’s invitation in public statements. Russia can say, we convinced the regime to come to the negotiating table, and you hindered the process. It can also say we warned against excluding Iran.
That is a possibility. It does not make sense that as the world prepares to make a deal with Iran, the Islamic Republic would be excluded. It also does not make sense that Washington would send signs to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about opening the US Embassy in Tehran then prevent it from attending the conference. It certainly was good for everyone to withdraw Iran’s invitation, including the United States, which avoided an embarrassing situation with what is left of its allies in the Syrian opposition.
What’s being said in UN hallways is that Iran will attend the following set of negotiations. The following negotiations will be attended by a wider spectrum of the opposition. This is what the Russians told the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, the Kurds, and others. Moscow advised factions within the opposition not to get on the first train of negotiations because it is not the most significant.
The National Coalition delegation represents but a fraction of the Syrian opposition. The Muslim Brotherhood has a considerable presence in the delegation. How can Saudi Arabia support their presence in this case while it fights their counterparts in Egypt by supporting General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi?
Washington is aware of this weakness. Some of its envoys to Geneva say they feel disappointed with the opposition. An opposition official at the conference, however, says that the United States and the West are responsible for this disappointment because they did not support the opposition with adequate arms and money to topple the regime.
Why did Moscow agree to restrict the opposition at Geneva II to just the internally divided National Coalition? Why did it agree to exclude its key allies within the opposition?
Something is cooking between Moscow and Washington for the next phase of negotiations, even though Lavrov complained about the deceit of US Ambassador Robert Ford. Lavrov exchanged whispered remarks with his Chinese counterpart more than once as they watched, along with the official Syrian delegation, how Ford was bringing in members of the coalition to the conference and seating them in their chairs like a school teacher. Nevertheless, the main goal of US-Russian negotiations now is combatting terrorism.
The same is true for the EU. At the last Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the European ministers said: “The EU shares the growing concern of all parties over the spread of extremism and extremist groups including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Nusra Front. The participation of these groups in the conflict represents a threat to the peace process and the unity of Syrian territories.”
The EU does not call for imposing a political settlement on the regime despite its harsh criticism of it. Rather, it insists on the notion of mutual understanding to form a transitional governmental body that would enjoy full executive powers.
According to the United States and Russia, the whole international community now wants to adopt urgent measures to stop the fighting, deliver humanitarian aid, and return the refugees to their homes. Yet they disagree on what constitutes a priority. The regime’s adversaries suggest that, in a best case scenario, the priority is agreement on a power transfer, and in a worst case scenario, to reconcile the political process with humanitarian aid. The regime and its allies reject such proposals and insist that any constitutional, presidential, or electoral future will be decided by Syrians and only Syrians.
There are two options for Geneva II: Either the coalition will agree to initiate the aforementioned urgent measures before discussing Assad’s future, or the curtain will come down on one of the most naive plays in modern history.
It appears, unfortunately, that failure is inevitable no matter how Brahimi spins it. The regime still believes that military success on the ground will have the final word. The coalition and its fighters still hope that the failure of the conference will convince the world to send more weapons to opposition fighters, allowing the fighting to go on until Geneva III. That is, if anything is left of Syria to negotiate over.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.\
In the first scene, Moallem stole the limelight. What will he come up with this time? The head of Syrian diplomacy will not even address the coalition delegation directly; he addresses Brahimi, who then tells the opposition what was said, word for word, or perhaps he summarizes a bit. This is a difficult and complicated process under normal circumstances, let alone when the Syrian foreign minister is the one speaking. It is no longer a secret that Moallem will focus on the priority of combatting terrorism. He will not accept any discussion of transferring powers, creating a transitional body, or of Assad stepping down. That, however, is unacceptable to the National Coalition delegation.
Then comes the opposition’s turn. The speaker will repeat that the priority is for Assad to step down. Yesterday, Jarba paved the way for this position during his press conference. He said in no uncertain terms: “The Assad regime cannot stay. It has become an image of the past representing the era of black and white.” He spoke and then left Geneva.
There are no shades of gray in these negotiations. Herein lies the knot of this play that will lead to its failure. Either black or white, both sides will dig in their heels.
How Will This Failure Play Out?
The Syrian regime delegation confirms it will not withdraw from the negotiations, as Moallem promised Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Syrian diplomat – who is well versed in negotiating matters and the US way of thinking (he was Syrian ambassador to Washington) – knows how to aggravate his adversaries or put them at ease. Will he prompt the opposition’s withdrawal this time by continuing to repeat that Assad will not step down and that this issue is outside the bounds of discussion? They would have to either accept or withdraw from the conference.Will They Withdraw?
It is more than likely the opposition will withdraw. The curtain might quickly come down on this play after just three days. The dreamy atmosphere in Montreux did not diminish each side’s desire to eliminate the other, and Geneva’s serenity will not ease this intransigence.Some people will continue to invoke a certain level of optimism. A UN official says, for example, that negotiations are always difficult at the beginning. He recounts how he personally participated in more difficult negotiations where the parties would come to the negotiating table carrying arms. He also says that both sides typically vent at the beginning of negotiations. This is normal, he stresses, but in the end, the mediator finds shared points of agreement to build upon. The role of UN officials is to be optimistic, but this time, the truth is somewhere else.
The truth is, everything was arranged so that Geneva II would fail. Failure is necessary because the conditions for reaching a political settlement are not yet ripe; the regime finds itself stronger on the ground and more united than the opposition. Failure is necessary because the opposition was unable to put together a team including all its factions.
It does not matter how the curtain will come down on Geneva II. What matters is what will happen after this masquerade. Will the fighting continue in Syria, or will the path be paved for Geneva III, under better circumstances, where everyone will attend, including Iran?
Iran’s Exclusion
Days after excluding Iran, it became evident that the pressure on the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was not the only reason to rescind Iran’s invitation. Information revealed that pressure from Saudi Arabia and France played the most prominent role in convincing Ban to rescind the invitation. He was told that if he did not rescind the invite, the National Coalition would not attend.Information also revealed that, during the meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council on January 20, the question of inviting Iran was discussed in depth. A number of European countries were in favor of inviting the Islamic Republic on the grounds that after its nuclear deal with the West, it could play a constructive role.
When certain foreign ministers raised the question of the coalition’s response to the invitation, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, “Don’t worry, I have contacted the UN, and we are in the process of addressing the problem.” Some European foreign ministers supported him while others opposed him, but in the end, the Europeans agree that the central issue with Iran is the nuclear question, whereas the Syrian issue is to be handled by the United States and Russia.
Europe seems lost when dealing with Syria. France raises the banner of Assad stepping down. But the Syrian regime is no longer worried about this issue. They say they can simply buy tickets for the European terrorists in their custody and return them to Europe. The possibility is not a joke.
Some in Europe have opened a direct line with Syria while others prefer to deal with Iran. In UN hallways, a visitor hears something else about rescinding the invitation to Iran. There is some sort of behind-the-scenes compromise reached through an Iranian-Russian agreement.
Iran was not enthusiastic about attending Geneva II in the first place. Perhaps it knew in advance that it would not lead anywhere. It is rumored that it deliberately refused to commit to Geneva I, which observes the transfer of presidential and security powers to a transitional body. It knew beforehand that holding on to this position means rejecting its presence at the conference. Not attending gives it more freedom of movement in the next phase to help its Syrian ally.
Moscow was only vexed over rescinding Iran’s invitation in public statements. Russia can say, we convinced the regime to come to the negotiating table, and you hindered the process. It can also say we warned against excluding Iran.
That is a possibility. It does not make sense that as the world prepares to make a deal with Iran, the Islamic Republic would be excluded. It also does not make sense that Washington would send signs to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about opening the US Embassy in Tehran then prevent it from attending the conference. It certainly was good for everyone to withdraw Iran’s invitation, including the United States, which avoided an embarrassing situation with what is left of its allies in the Syrian opposition.
What’s being said in UN hallways is that Iran will attend the following set of negotiations. The following negotiations will be attended by a wider spectrum of the opposition. This is what the Russians told the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, the Kurds, and others. Moscow advised factions within the opposition not to get on the first train of negotiations because it is not the most significant.
The National Coalition delegation represents but a fraction of the Syrian opposition. The Muslim Brotherhood has a considerable presence in the delegation. How can Saudi Arabia support their presence in this case while it fights their counterparts in Egypt by supporting General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi?
Washington is aware of this weakness. Some of its envoys to Geneva say they feel disappointed with the opposition. An opposition official at the conference, however, says that the United States and the West are responsible for this disappointment because they did not support the opposition with adequate arms and money to topple the regime.
Why did Moscow agree to restrict the opposition at Geneva II to just the internally divided National Coalition? Why did it agree to exclude its key allies within the opposition?
Something is cooking between Moscow and Washington for the next phase of negotiations, even though Lavrov complained about the deceit of US Ambassador Robert Ford. Lavrov exchanged whispered remarks with his Chinese counterpart more than once as they watched, along with the official Syrian delegation, how Ford was bringing in members of the coalition to the conference and seating them in their chairs like a school teacher. Nevertheless, the main goal of US-Russian negotiations now is combatting terrorism.
The same is true for the EU. At the last Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the European ministers said: “The EU shares the growing concern of all parties over the spread of extremism and extremist groups including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Nusra Front. The participation of these groups in the conflict represents a threat to the peace process and the unity of Syrian territories.”
The EU does not call for imposing a political settlement on the regime despite its harsh criticism of it. Rather, it insists on the notion of mutual understanding to form a transitional governmental body that would enjoy full executive powers.
According to the United States and Russia, the whole international community now wants to adopt urgent measures to stop the fighting, deliver humanitarian aid, and return the refugees to their homes. Yet they disagree on what constitutes a priority. The regime’s adversaries suggest that, in a best case scenario, the priority is agreement on a power transfer, and in a worst case scenario, to reconcile the political process with humanitarian aid. The regime and its allies reject such proposals and insist that any constitutional, presidential, or electoral future will be decided by Syrians and only Syrians.
There are two options for Geneva II: Either the coalition will agree to initiate the aforementioned urgent measures before discussing Assad’s future, or the curtain will come down on one of the most naive plays in modern history.
It appears, unfortunately, that failure is inevitable no matter how Brahimi spins it. The regime still believes that military success on the ground will have the final word. The coalition and its fighters still hope that the failure of the conference will convince the world to send more weapons to opposition fighters, allowing the fighting to go on until Geneva III. That is, if anything is left of Syria to negotiate over.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.\
Syrian delegation threatens to quit Geneva
Syrian
deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad speaks to journalists at the
"Geneva II" peace talks on January 24, 2014 at the United Nations
headquarters in Geneva. (Photo: AFP - Fabrice Coffrini)
Updated 2:15 pm: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem
threatened to pull his delegation from the Geneva II peace talks if no
serious sessions were held by Saturday.
"If no serious work sessions are held by (Saturday), the official Syrian delegation will leave Geneva due to the other side's lack of seriousness or preparedness," state television quoted Moallem as saying, citing a United Nations source.
His comments came on Friday after the Syrian opposition refused to meet the Syrian government delegation unless it first signs up to a protocol calling for a transitional government.
Plans were ditched at the last minute for the two sides to sit down to talk face to face for the first time. Instead, they would each meet separately with a UN mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told reporters the opposition was obstructing the talks.
"The problem is that these people do not want to make peace; they are coming here with pre-conditions," he told reporters.
"Of course we are ready to sit in the same room. Why are we coming here then," he asked.
The closed-door discussions were due to begin on Friday, two days after a formal opening conference was held in a poisonous atmosphere, with both sides and their global backers making uncompromising public speeches.
Any direct meeting appears unlikely for now.
The opposition says it has come to discuss a transition that will remove Assad from power. The government says it is there only to talk about fighting terrorism, and no one can force Assad to go.
Opposition delegates decided they would not meet the government delegation unless it endorsed "Geneva I," a 2012 protocol that calls for a political transition.
"We have explicitly demanded a written commitment from the regime delegation to accept Geneva I. Otherwise there will be no direct negotiations," opposition delegate Haitham al-Maleh told Reuters.
Syria's Information Minister Omran Zoabi rejected the demand for the establishment of a transitional governing body.
"No, we will not accept it," Zoabi told Reuters on Friday.
But UN spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci told reporters that Brahimi would instead meet with the Syrian government delegation at 11:00 am (1000 GMT) and then the opposition at 4:00 pm.
"Both meetings will be bilateral," she said.
"You have to understand that the peace process is being shaped at the moment. You have to be patient," Vellucci said, when pressed by reporters for details of the talks.
"This process is shaping up, so there have been changes to previous declarations," she said. "We are going step by step."
Brahimi has indicated that his aim is to start by seeking practical steps, like local ceasefires, prisoner releases and access for international aid deliveries, before embarking on the tougher political negotiations.
Among the hurdles to progress, the Islamist militants who control most rebel-held territory are boycotting the talks and say anyone attending negotiations that fail to bring down Assad would be traitors.
During Wednesday's opening ceremony, the government delegation drew a rebuke from Ban for using inflammatory language after referring in a speech to rebels raping dead women, ripping fetuses from the womb and eating human organs.
In a defiant speech on Thursday, opposition leader Ahmed Jarba said the international community had concluded that Assad cannot stay in power.
"We have started to look into the future without him. Assad and all of his regime is in the past now. Nobody should have any doubt that the head of the regime is finished. This regime is dead," Jarba said.
(Reuters, AFP, Al-Akhbar)
"If no serious work sessions are held by (Saturday), the official Syrian delegation will leave Geneva due to the other side's lack of seriousness or preparedness," state television quoted Moallem as saying, citing a United Nations source.
His comments came on Friday after the Syrian opposition refused to meet the Syrian government delegation unless it first signs up to a protocol calling for a transitional government.
Plans were ditched at the last minute for the two sides to sit down to talk face to face for the first time. Instead, they would each meet separately with a UN mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad told reporters the opposition was obstructing the talks.
"The problem is that these people do not want to make peace; they are coming here with pre-conditions," he told reporters.
"Of course we are ready to sit in the same room. Why are we coming here then," he asked.
The closed-door discussions were due to begin on Friday, two days after a formal opening conference was held in a poisonous atmosphere, with both sides and their global backers making uncompromising public speeches.
Any direct meeting appears unlikely for now.
The opposition says it has come to discuss a transition that will remove Assad from power. The government says it is there only to talk about fighting terrorism, and no one can force Assad to go.
Opposition delegates decided they would not meet the government delegation unless it endorsed "Geneva I," a 2012 protocol that calls for a political transition.
"We have explicitly demanded a written commitment from the regime delegation to accept Geneva I. Otherwise there will be no direct negotiations," opposition delegate Haitham al-Maleh told Reuters.
Syria's Information Minister Omran Zoabi rejected the demand for the establishment of a transitional governing body.
"No, we will not accept it," Zoabi told Reuters on Friday.
But UN spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci told reporters that Brahimi would instead meet with the Syrian government delegation at 11:00 am (1000 GMT) and then the opposition at 4:00 pm.
"Both meetings will be bilateral," she said.
"You have to understand that the peace process is being shaped at the moment. You have to be patient," Vellucci said, when pressed by reporters for details of the talks.
"This process is shaping up, so there have been changes to previous declarations," she said. "We are going step by step."
Brahimi has indicated that his aim is to start by seeking practical steps, like local ceasefires, prisoner releases and access for international aid deliveries, before embarking on the tougher political negotiations.
Among the hurdles to progress, the Islamist militants who control most rebel-held territory are boycotting the talks and say anyone attending negotiations that fail to bring down Assad would be traitors.
During Wednesday's opening ceremony, the government delegation drew a rebuke from Ban for using inflammatory language after referring in a speech to rebels raping dead women, ripping fetuses from the womb and eating human organs.
In a defiant speech on Thursday, opposition leader Ahmed Jarba said the international community had concluded that Assad cannot stay in power.
"We have started to look into the future without him. Assad and all of his regime is in the past now. Nobody should have any doubt that the head of the regime is finished. This regime is dead," Jarba said.
(Reuters, AFP, Al-Akhbar)
Comments
Submitted by Rowan Berkeley (not verified) on Sat, 2014-01-25 04:44.
There is no logic in the idea of a 'transitional authority' at all.
Russia & China made a mistake by accepting the idea at G1. Look at
the composition of G1. It was hosted by Kofi Annan and attended by
Ban-Ki-Moon and the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League, China, France,
Russia, Britain, the USA, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the EU.
Submitted by Guest (not verified) on Fri, 2014-01-24 17:30.
what can the GOVERNMENT discuss with terrorists?
let's be honest, that is no opposition we can tell you from 1st hand experience and here we are talking about the western jokers like jabra
they are extremely violent aggressive abusive brutal and thugs
they attacked women because they refused to accept their "house arab" version of the TERRORISM in our Suriya
Just take a look around - Libya, Syria; Ukraine, Thailand, ......
an inferno created by US/UK/EU
People do not give a damn about their "demockery, freedom, bud, homosexuals, .....any other lofty ideals
people hate their sick perverted ideology of IMPERIALISM/TERRORISM
it is important to resist the zionised crusader mafia ideology as it effects us all
let's be honest, that is no opposition we can tell you from 1st hand experience and here we are talking about the western jokers like jabra
they are extremely violent aggressive abusive brutal and thugs
they attacked women because they refused to accept their "house arab" version of the TERRORISM in our Suriya
Just take a look around - Libya, Syria; Ukraine, Thailand, ......
an inferno created by US/UK/EU
People do not give a damn about their "demockery, freedom, bud, homosexuals, .....any other lofty ideals
people hate their sick perverted ideology of IMPERIALISM/TERRORISM
it is important to resist the zionised crusader mafia ideology as it effects us all
Politik AS
Calon anggota DPR Florida, Joshua Black menyampaikan pernyataan kontroversial tentang Presiden AS Barack Obama dengan mengatakan bahwa Obama harus digantung karena kejahatan perangnya.
"Saya menyampaikan impeachment," tulis kandidat Partai Republik di Gedung Florida District 68 itu di Twitter. "Sudah waktunya untuk menangkap dan menggantungnya tinggi-tinggi."
Setelah tweet kontroversial itu, Black mengatakan Obama harus bertanggung jawab karena memerintahkan serangan pesawat tak berawak yang menewaskan seorang warga AS di luar negeri pada tahun 2011, Tampa Bay Times melaporkan.
"Dia harus dieksekusi karena pengkhianatan," kata Black. "Saya pikir hukuman yang sesuai adalah mati .... Obama tidak boleh membunuh warga Amerika tanpa pengadilan."
Black juga memposting pesan kepada pendukungnya di Facebook. "Saya tidak perlu minta maaf karena mengatakan presiden tidak lebih dari rakyat . Jika warga biasa Amerika harus dieksekusi karena pengkhianatan, maka Obama juga demikian," katanya.
Partai Republik di Florida mengutuk pernyataan Black itu. "Ini menyedihkan, itu penghinaan dan mendapat tempat dalam wacana publik," Susan Hepworth, direktur komunikasi Partai Republik di Florida mengatakan hari Selasa (20/1/14). [IT/r]
Obama Seharusnya Digantung
Islam
Times – http://www.islamtimes.org/vdca6enea49nyo1.h8k4.html
"Saya menyampaikan impeachment," tulis kandidat Partai Republik
di Gedung Florida District 68 itu di Twitter. "Sudah waktunya untuk
menangkap dan menggantungnya tinggi-tinggi."
Joshua Black, Politikus AS.jpg
Calon anggota DPR Florida, Joshua Black menyampaikan pernyataan kontroversial tentang Presiden AS Barack Obama dengan mengatakan bahwa Obama harus digantung karena kejahatan perangnya.
"Saya menyampaikan impeachment," tulis kandidat Partai Republik di Gedung Florida District 68 itu di Twitter. "Sudah waktunya untuk menangkap dan menggantungnya tinggi-tinggi."
Setelah tweet kontroversial itu, Black mengatakan Obama harus bertanggung jawab karena memerintahkan serangan pesawat tak berawak yang menewaskan seorang warga AS di luar negeri pada tahun 2011, Tampa Bay Times melaporkan.
"Dia harus dieksekusi karena pengkhianatan," kata Black. "Saya pikir hukuman yang sesuai adalah mati .... Obama tidak boleh membunuh warga Amerika tanpa pengadilan."
Black juga memposting pesan kepada pendukungnya di Facebook. "Saya tidak perlu minta maaf karena mengatakan presiden tidak lebih dari rakyat . Jika warga biasa Amerika harus dieksekusi karena pengkhianatan, maka Obama juga demikian," katanya.
Partai Republik di Florida mengutuk pernyataan Black itu. "Ini menyedihkan, itu penghinaan dan mendapat tempat dalam wacana publik," Susan Hepworth, direktur komunikasi Partai Republik di Florida mengatakan hari Selasa (20/1/14). [IT/r]
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar