Damascus Has Been Taken
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 16 April 2012
by Vladislav Vorobyov (link to original)
(Russia) on 16 April 2012
by Vladislav Vorobyov (link to original)
Translated from
by Thomas Wallace.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The West was presented with two military-political “surprises” at the end of last week.
Western capitals digested with difficulty reports from Syria indicating that Syrian governmental forces have halted full force attacks against the rebels. Everyone except Russia and China refused to believe this until the very end. Washington, London and Paris have been forced to admit the truth of Moscow's position. For months, Moscow has been urging its partners in the U.N. Security Council that not just supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but also his implacable enemies, must come to the negotiating table and explore all possible methods of achieving a settlement.
These events developed quickly. On April 12, President al-Assad made the courageous decision to order a halt on attacks against the rebels, whose ranks have been increasingly filled by terrorists (including members of al-Qaida). On this same day, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met in Washington to hold a range of discussions. Here, it emerged that the American side acknowledged the correctness of Moscow's stance: that it is short-sighted and foolish to strengthen one side in the Syrian conflict while hounding another. Lavrov informed reporters during the course of these negotiations: “Hillary Clinton agreed that in addition to working with the Syrian government (and we have been carrying out this work every day, throughout the whole course of the conflict), it also is important to send analogous signals to the armed opposition. The meeting continued in a business-like manner.”
But one extremely important question remains unanswered: who will monitor both sides' adherence to the cease-fire? In other words, who can objectively analyze the situation and, should violence once again break out, who will inform the U.N. Security Council about the real state of affairs? Every minute is important.
“Just yesterday, in the city of Homs, terrorists shot a Syrian military officer, exploded a landmine and lobbed dynamite bombs at a military patrol. Similar incidents and attacks carried out by opposition groups have been noted in other Syrian cities,” reported the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a message from April 14. It simultaneously became clear that Syrian government forces had resumed attacking rebels in Homs.
It is no secret that many Western politicians (including so called “friends of Syria”) had already announced the failure of U.N. Special Representative Kofi Annan's mission to Syria. He himself was the author of the fragile peace agreement. But he cannot be blamed alone; without careful monitoring of Syria's adherence to the treaty's details, the entire world's current diplomatic efforts are for nothing. All of this was backed by Clinton, who does not mince words. The Americans have agreed with Lavrov to seat both warring sides at the diplomatic table, and so it will be.
On April 14 the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution to deploy 30 monitors (among them one Russian) to the Syrian conflict. The document also contains a short appeal for both sides “immediately to cease all armed violence in all its forms.” Now it is paramount that the observers succeed in arriving to Syria to carry out their important mission before violence breaks out again. The first group out of a total of six flew into Syria on April 16. The situation all depends on Bashar al-Assad, who simply does not have the right to make any new mistakes.
Western capitals digested with difficulty reports from Syria indicating that Syrian governmental forces have halted full force attacks against the rebels. Everyone except Russia and China refused to believe this until the very end. Washington, London and Paris have been forced to admit the truth of Moscow's position. For months, Moscow has been urging its partners in the U.N. Security Council that not just supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but also his implacable enemies, must come to the negotiating table and explore all possible methods of achieving a settlement.
These events developed quickly. On April 12, President al-Assad made the courageous decision to order a halt on attacks against the rebels, whose ranks have been increasingly filled by terrorists (including members of al-Qaida). On this same day, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met in Washington to hold a range of discussions. Here, it emerged that the American side acknowledged the correctness of Moscow's stance: that it is short-sighted and foolish to strengthen one side in the Syrian conflict while hounding another. Lavrov informed reporters during the course of these negotiations: “Hillary Clinton agreed that in addition to working with the Syrian government (and we have been carrying out this work every day, throughout the whole course of the conflict), it also is important to send analogous signals to the armed opposition. The meeting continued in a business-like manner.”
But one extremely important question remains unanswered: who will monitor both sides' adherence to the cease-fire? In other words, who can objectively analyze the situation and, should violence once again break out, who will inform the U.N. Security Council about the real state of affairs? Every minute is important.
“Just yesterday, in the city of Homs, terrorists shot a Syrian military officer, exploded a landmine and lobbed dynamite bombs at a military patrol. Similar incidents and attacks carried out by opposition groups have been noted in other Syrian cities,” reported the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a message from April 14. It simultaneously became clear that Syrian government forces had resumed attacking rebels in Homs.
It is no secret that many Western politicians (including so called “friends of Syria”) had already announced the failure of U.N. Special Representative Kofi Annan's mission to Syria. He himself was the author of the fragile peace agreement. But he cannot be blamed alone; without careful monitoring of Syria's adherence to the treaty's details, the entire world's current diplomatic efforts are for nothing. All of this was backed by Clinton, who does not mince words. The Americans have agreed with Lavrov to seat both warring sides at the diplomatic table, and so it will be.
On April 14 the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution to deploy 30 monitors (among them one Russian) to the Syrian conflict. The document also contains a short appeal for both sides “immediately to cease all armed violence in all its forms.” Now it is paramount that the observers succeed in arriving to Syria to carry out their important mission before violence breaks out again. The first group out of a total of six flew into Syria on April 16. The situation all depends on Bashar al-Assad, who simply does not have the right to make any new mistakes.