Is Al-Assad part of the solution in Syria?

The statements made by UN Envoy Staffan de Mistura, in which he considered Bashar Al-Assad to be part of the solution in Syria, provoked angry reactions from opposition groups and, quite possibly, the majority of Syrians.

Their anger was increased by the fact of his remarks coinciding with a storm of regime missiles and barrel bombs raining on the heads of civilians in Douma. Assad’s ongoing disastrous war has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, displaced over half of the total population, and destroyed dozens of towns and cities. De Mistura’s statements were also made close to the fourth anniversary of the war, the devastating results of which Assad must carry responsibility.

Loss of mediation

Such an angry reaction came not only from the Syrian opposition but also the French foreign ministry, which rejected them and said that there could be no change in Syria without the departure of Assad. The spokeswoman for the US Department of State, Jennifer Psaki, gave a statement to the same effect: “Our position hasn’t changed. Some of it, I think, is an over-reading into one comment the Secretary made that is an inaccurate reading of what the United States’ position is. The delusions that Assad presents only reaffirm our firm belief that he long ago lost all legitimacy and must go.”

De Mistura’s spokeswoman, Juliette Touma, tried to dodge his statements, saying that the special envoy for Syria “affirms that the Geneva communiqué of 2012 remains the reference to reaching a long-term political solution for the crisis in Syria.” However, she added that “President Assad and the Syrian authorities must contribute to reaching a solution that would put an end to the violence and the unfolding humanitarian tragedy in Syria.”

Then de Mistura himself tried to soothe the anger caused by his words by contacting Khaled Khoja, the President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, in an effort to clarify his statement made at the end of his meeting with Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz in Vienna.

It may have made matters worse when de Mistura told Khoja that the purpose of the statement “was to drag Al-Assad into the circle of the solution, and implicating him in the beginning of a political solution.” He claimed that his words were not meant in the literal sense because this looks like a clear attempt to outsmart the coalition leader. It implies that the Syrian president is being dragged into a political solution and confirms his role therein, which may mean that he may stay in authority; the same authority for the sake of which he has waged this war. Assad sold the country to the mullahs of Iran and Hezbollah militants in exchange for protection against the Syrian people so that he might continue to subject them to his regime of tyranny and oppression.

The truth is that de Mistura’s words were not arbitrary; they are not the sort of thing that you hear from officials once they have retired. The words were uttered by the UN envoy about Assad’s regime and the Syrian crisis and nothing de Mistura says will change the impact of what he said or change its meaning. This is especially so because the US and its coalition partners have changed their agenda and priorities, making the war on ISIS their main concern and the main point of interest for America and international parties. The resolution of the Syrian crisis no longer means much to them.

Which all suggests that the envoy has a biased position in favour of Assad and his regime, rendering his UN mediation open to question and liable to collapse. This could be why the opposition forces have rejected his involvement and accuse him of trying to appease Assad. He also went too far by saying that “Bashar Al-Assad is still the ruling Syrian President.” De Mistura did not say what this president governs and how he can only govern part of the country.

How could he forget that the man he was talking about is accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that many UN reports confirmed that he has committed the most heinous massacres against his people, including the use of chemical weapons? Instead of demanding that he be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for his war crimes and that international justice be served, de Mistura calls on him to “contribute to putting an end to the violence”. By doing so, the UN envoy is reassuring Assad that he is part of the solution in Syria and that he will stay in power.

De Mistura’s path

I believe that the path chosen by de Mistura reveals the fact that since he was appointed as special envoy to Syria he has been trying to eliminate the political bases on which the Geneva I Conference of 30 June, 2012, was based, despite his claim that he uses the agreement as a reference for his actions. This is certainly true as far as the transitional government body with full executive powers is concerned, and the six items in Kofi Annan’s initiative.

The alternative proposed by de Mistura was to focus on the humanitarian side and treat the Syrian conflict simply as a humanitarian crisis. That is evidenced by the statement in which he said that the fundamental problem in Syria lies in the humanitarian arena.

Despite the importance of the humanitarian issue in Syria, which the international community must address without any further discussion or hesitation, de Mistura’s proposal deviates from the main task entrusted to him, which requires him to intensify his efforts in order to reach a political solution that ends the crisis and meets the aspirations of the Syrian people. Instead, he has gradually evaded this task and instead proposed a number of ideas that address the least important issues without affecting the head of the regime. Instead of completely stopping the fighting, in accordance with the Geneva I Conference, he talked about “freezing the fighting in limited areas” in exchange for allowing humanitarian aid to enter.

In the first phase, the UN envoy proposed to freeze fighting in over 15 Syrian areas, then he withdrew his proposal when it was not accepted by Assad, and instead accepted that the freeze could begin in Aleppo. He then talked about the “positivity of the regime” and it’s welcome for his plan. This was followed a number of statements and visits to Damascus, all of which were in the context of raising the level of security coordination with Assad’s regime; this was to lead to the rehabilitation of the regime by restoring international recognition and making it a partner in the war on ISIS. He even asked the opposition to unite with the regime “to face the threat ISIS poses to everyone.”

De Mistura deliberately and knowingly ignores Assad’s role in the growth in the number of terrorists and providing them with the ability to expand their activities because the president is responsible for their release from his prisons.

The envoy has taken advantage of the international community’s preoccupation with the war against ISIS to promote his ideas and join the efforts to direct all energies towards that end because of the international consensus. This means that he is focusing the opposition and the regime’s efforts on the war against ISIS. However, he must know that any solution in Syria must include an end to the Assad regime’s injustice against the Syrian people, and that troops loyal to the president have never fought a real battle against ISIS. Instead, when factions of the Free Syrian Army fought ISIS, regime jets provided support for the extremist group by bombing the opposition sites with missiles and barrel bombs.

Even worse than this is the fact that Assad’s regime made it easy for ISIS to take control of many areas, especially Al-Raqqa and Aleppo. However, when the FSA attack these areas, the regime army fights back furiously.

International positions

Despite the response of the French foreign ministry and US department of state to de Mistura’s comments, the positions of the EU countries and America have experienced a significant change recently regarding the Syrian crisis.

While the majority of politicians have demanded the departure of Assad for over two years, and they have increasingly said that his days are numbered, they are now silent in the face of his crimes; at the same time, their positions are very cold and they are taking no action against him. In addition, they are not making any effort to reach a political solution that would put an end to the disastrous suffering of the Syrian people. Instead, they are now focusing on the war on ISIS, describing it as a top priority for the national security of each of their countries. They have also given Russian politicians the green light to gather the “opposition” in Moscow along with the Syrian regime’s representative in the UN, Bashar Jaafari, for a consultative meeting; they have not, though, discussed anything relating to the essence of the suffering of the Syrians.

De Mistura blessed Moscow’s efforts to produce a political opposition that would accept the presence of Assad. Russia has sought to do this, and Iran has hinted at it many times. That is why the Russian foreign ministry boasted of the high value that the envoy placed on the meeting held in Moscow at the end of January.

Out of respect for the humanitarian aspect, the UN special envoy should, at the very least, have said at least one word against the genocidal war waged by the regime against Douma, which is close to the area he was staying in while meeting with Assad. Instead, he chose to provoke the victims by celebrating the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution with Iranian officials in Damascus. This provocative step does not sit easily with the sensitive diplomatic task with which he is charged, just a few kilometres away from the areas that have been witnessing a fierce barbaric war waged by regime forces for years.

De Mistura’s words may be reassuring to Assad and his regime for a while, but they will not rehabilitate it nor restore the regime’s legitimacy; that was lost on the first day of the Syrian revolution. Between the regime’s reliance and de Mistura’s bets, the path that the Syrians began four years ago will only end with a political solution in which Assad can play no role. Such an Assad-free solution will end the suffering of the Syrians and meet their aspirations by ridding themselves of the current tyrannical regime and moving towards the revolutionary goal of freedom.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 17 February, 2015

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.