America and the Anti-Assads
Published in El Watan
(Algeria) on 15 May 2013
by Hassan Moall (link to original)
The “accord” signed last week between Moscow and Washington appears to have raised hopes that the different actors in this conflict will at last be able to agree on a way out of the crisis with minimum damage.
The U.S. is by no means a supporter of Bashar al-Assad, yet it would not necessarily oppose an intermediary political solution that would see the “master of Damascus” keep hold, for a limited time, of power in his country. This would be a concession granted by Washington to Moscow, which persists in its desire to save Bashar the soldier, a concession not greatly appreciated by America’s partners in the Gulf who are financing and arming the Syrian opposition. Doha and Riyadh refuse to envisage a political solution that would save al-Assad’s skin.
This dichotomy will certainly entail a fierce debate when the friends of Syria meet next week in the kingdom of Jordan. A Jordanian government spokesperson, Sabah al-Rifaï, yesterday confirmed the participation of the U.S., France, the U.K., Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Germany and Italy.
No doubt there will be tension in the air in Amman, with countries such as Qatar, Turkey and France, partisans of a solution without al-Assad, on one side, and on the other, those countries, led by the U.S., who defend a more nuanced standpoint so as to avoid irking the Russians.
In reality, all of these “friends of Syria” represent the keenest opposition to the al-Assad regime for which they see no future. The U.S. must then arm itself with “arguments of mass destruction” in order to convince the emirs and kings of the Gulf states to put a little water in their fermented milk.
This will not be a simple task given the current state of affairs, even if the Americans seem to be in charge of the decision process. In any case, this meeting, which follows meetings between Americans and Russians, principle allies of Damascus as well as its biggest source of arms, could well be decisive.
Moscow and Washington have agreed to organize an international conference on Syria for the near future in a new attempt to put an end to more than two years of civil war. This conference, intended to unite regime and opposition, will work from the base of the Geneva agreement signed by the major powers in June 2012, which allows for a process of transition in order to bring to a close a conflict which has entailed more than 80,000 deaths, according to one nongovernmental organization.
Washington, then, will try to convince Moscow and its allies to adopt the content of the agreement, without stepping on too many toes.
This is not to say, of course, that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Turkey or even Jordan will comply with the U.S.’ requests. These countries recently reiterated their conviction that al-Assad has no part to play in the future of Syria. The French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius even called yesterday for a “Geneva II” that would remove the stipulation to keep al-Assad in power. Fabius is aware, however, of the size of this task, given the Russians' persistence in exercising their veto.
Nor are the Americans convinced by the Syrian rebels armed so bounteously by Doha and Riyadh. Washington appears increasingly skeptical about the Syrian armed opposition, whose modus operandi is not so different from that of al-Qaida. For its part, the Syrian regime won’t hear of any solution that excludes Bashar.
In an interview granted on Monday evening to the TV channel of Hezbollah, an ally of Damascus, the Syrian information minister, Omrane al-Zohbi, reiterated that the fate of Bashar al-Assad was in the hands of “the Syrian people and the ballot boxes,” a reference to the presidential election due to take place in 2014. Syria’s participation in the conference is “dependent on its details,” said the minister, revealing that agents of Syrian foreign affairs were “conducting investigations” to that end. The “details” of the conference clearly relate to the fate of Bashar al-Assad — a detail of size, we should emphasize.
The U.S. is by no means a supporter of Bashar al-Assad, yet it would not necessarily oppose an intermediary political solution that would see the “master of Damascus” keep hold, for a limited time, of power in his country. This would be a concession granted by Washington to Moscow, which persists in its desire to save Bashar the soldier, a concession not greatly appreciated by America’s partners in the Gulf who are financing and arming the Syrian opposition. Doha and Riyadh refuse to envisage a political solution that would save al-Assad’s skin.
This dichotomy will certainly entail a fierce debate when the friends of Syria meet next week in the kingdom of Jordan. A Jordanian government spokesperson, Sabah al-Rifaï, yesterday confirmed the participation of the U.S., France, the U.K., Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Germany and Italy.
No doubt there will be tension in the air in Amman, with countries such as Qatar, Turkey and France, partisans of a solution without al-Assad, on one side, and on the other, those countries, led by the U.S., who defend a more nuanced standpoint so as to avoid irking the Russians.
In reality, all of these “friends of Syria” represent the keenest opposition to the al-Assad regime for which they see no future. The U.S. must then arm itself with “arguments of mass destruction” in order to convince the emirs and kings of the Gulf states to put a little water in their fermented milk.
This will not be a simple task given the current state of affairs, even if the Americans seem to be in charge of the decision process. In any case, this meeting, which follows meetings between Americans and Russians, principle allies of Damascus as well as its biggest source of arms, could well be decisive.
Moscow and Washington have agreed to organize an international conference on Syria for the near future in a new attempt to put an end to more than two years of civil war. This conference, intended to unite regime and opposition, will work from the base of the Geneva agreement signed by the major powers in June 2012, which allows for a process of transition in order to bring to a close a conflict which has entailed more than 80,000 deaths, according to one nongovernmental organization.
Washington, then, will try to convince Moscow and its allies to adopt the content of the agreement, without stepping on too many toes.
This is not to say, of course, that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Turkey or even Jordan will comply with the U.S.’ requests. These countries recently reiterated their conviction that al-Assad has no part to play in the future of Syria. The French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius even called yesterday for a “Geneva II” that would remove the stipulation to keep al-Assad in power. Fabius is aware, however, of the size of this task, given the Russians' persistence in exercising their veto.
Nor are the Americans convinced by the Syrian rebels armed so bounteously by Doha and Riyadh. Washington appears increasingly skeptical about the Syrian armed opposition, whose modus operandi is not so different from that of al-Qaida. For its part, the Syrian regime won’t hear of any solution that excludes Bashar.
In an interview granted on Monday evening to the TV channel of Hezbollah, an ally of Damascus, the Syrian information minister, Omrane al-Zohbi, reiterated that the fate of Bashar al-Assad was in the hands of “the Syrian people and the ballot boxes,” a reference to the presidential election due to take place in 2014. Syria’s participation in the conference is “dependent on its details,” said the minister, revealing that agents of Syrian foreign affairs were “conducting investigations” to that end. The “details” of the conference clearly relate to the fate of Bashar al-Assad — a detail of size, we should emphasize.