Real Solution vs. Mined Solution
Opponents of the political solution tried to mix the cards again in the Syrian crisis, after bombing of the situation in the north of Syria, the Turkish aggression on Afrin, and the «non-paper» of the five states group.
Nevertheless, an objective assessment of the international and regional mobilization during the last week, from the meeting of the Syrian opposition forces in Riyadh, through the visit of the delegation of the opposition negotiating commission to Moscow; the special meetings in Geneva; the "no paper" of the five countries, up to the National Dialogue Conference in Sochi. All this leads us to the basic conclusion that the conflict today is no longer over the political solution itself, at least in form, but rather a struggle over the nature of the solution and its trends. That is, the conflict is taking place today between the supporters of the real solution and the supporters of the mined solutions. In other words, the political solution has become a fixed option, or to put it more clearly, one party's choice has imposed itself on the other choice. It is the first time the five states find themselves obliged to put forward a paper on the "political solution."
The stability of the political solution, the significant accumulation through its course over the past few months, and the fall of the former military and political instruments of the anti-solution forces, one by one, seemed to put on the agenda of Washington, and Washington's allies, the mission of planting mines into the political solution, and of seeking to produce a deformed and monstrous “solution”, after they became disable to abort it.
It is clear that "non-paper" of the five is in contradiction, in form and content, with the course of the solution, and with all UN resolutions, especially UN SC resolution 2254. Moreover, this "non-paper" is essentially an instrument of legitimizing regional and international influence in Syria through the "solution" itself, i.e. fixation and freezing of the current status que, which practically means pushing Syria to partition.
The consensus on the political solution and resolution 2254 as a road map – after a strenuous effort by the Syrian people’s allied international forces and the serious Syrian forces – is a historical gain for the Syrian people. It is not permissible to relinquish this gain by any party, under any pretext whatsoever. This consensus is in its essence and ultimate function a tool to restore the decision-making for the Syrians, to decide their fate, without tutelage of anyone, and without seeking to find alternative paths, or out of context jurisprudences that empty the resolution of its content.
through this vision one should deal with all the proposed initiatives to solve the Syrian crisis, whether these initiatives be the suspicious ones being put forward by the defeated and backward war alliance, or the initiatives of the Syrian people's allies, including the National Dialogue Conference in Sochi because it is not an alternative path, and it should not be so. Rather it should be dealt with, as the hosting party has repeatedly stressed, as a path supportive to the Geneva path, and a tool for pushing the latter forward. The United Nations Secretary-General's decision to participate further underscores the specific function of this conference and its being uncontradictable to international resolutions.
Kassioun Editorial, Issue No 847, Jan. 29, 2018