Kassioun's 2013 Panorama
Kassioun had early, since 2002, caught the onsets of the U.S. general decline, depending on an in-depth analysis of the organic and deeply rooted crisis of the world capitalist system, that the USA had tried to circumvent through what it had called the «War against Terrorism», i.e., the campaign that couldn't fulfill its desired goals, leading to the explosion of the financial facet of the crisis in 2008, to be followed by the economic, social and political ones.
Now, one can say that the new international balance between the BRICS group and its allies, on one hand, and the Western powers, on the other, had since 2008 turned to be an unfolding reality with all its economic, military and security implications. One of the layers of the ongoing world conflict is, at the end of the day, no more than a struggle to apply this balance politically. This was clearly seen and had already started with the first dual Russian-Chinese Veto related to the Syrian issue, and it included so far the «Iranian Geneva» and will include the Syrian one, under a bigger umbrella that might be called «Yalta2», recalling the post-WWII Yalta Agreement that laid the rules of the world political influences and controls, at the time. Now, as the world capitalist crisis covers and life-threatens the entire capitalist system, including the BRICS countries, the new balance we are talking about here is also temporal and not everlasting- as was the case with the Cold War, for example- but it would soon turn into a real polarization between the world nations and the entire world capitalist system.
The more and more apparent cracks within the American administration might be the new surfacing issue that characterizes the year 2013 and that turned to be the basic elements of how to perceive the changes of the world. Those cracks are natural symptoms of any degrading power throughout history.
«The new international balance of forces imposes on the United States and its camp one of two options, either a systematic decline where Washington assumes a size that fits its contribution in the gross world product (this contribution did not exceed 18% ten years ago, and it is now far less), or a sudden and shocking collapse or caving-in. As the first option is much more rational, yet, as a systematic decline, it means at the same time a collapse of a particular part of the Capitalist system: the purely non-productive financial and banking sectors, led by world Zionism. This, in turn, means that for those sectors the option of sticking to wars through a "new fascist" form would be a project worthy to "fight" for». (Kassiuon Editorial, issue 620, September,23, 2013).
«The international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, its Al-Qaida and derivatives spearheads, do represents in our days the new fascist choice, as they altogether form a widespread financial structure, capable of delivering the most reactionary forms of the rule of financial oligarchies. They are fundamentally able to create continuous wars aiming eventually at attacking the development of the production forces worldwide, a practice that can no longer be endured by the world capitalist system. (Ibid)
The hardline positions of some regional countries and some Syrian opposition forces can be explained by their affiliation with the fascist part of the American administration.
A number of regions in the world witnessed the beginning of the application of the new international balance on the regional levels. In Egypt, the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood was toppled, whereas the Egyptian– Russian relations restored rapid revival. In Turkey, the popularity of the ruling «Justice and Development Party» witnessed a sharp setback, particularly after the recent corruption scandals, whereas a wide Turkish government's role in the Syrian conflict started to retreat. The American alternatives in both Tunisia and Libya witnessed similar confusions and retreats, as Ukraine started to go back to the Russian domain. Qatar was removed out of the scene of the regional intervention in Syria for Saudi Arabia. «Amidst these outrageous changes Washington is only facing one truth: "With every new day, the U.S. would be weaker than the previous one", though Washington itself was during the Syrian crisis so far unwilling to have political solutions for it and is still insisting right from beginning to pursue with its indirect intervention tools in order to "burn Syria from inside". Hence, what Washington could attained through a political solution within the current balance of forces would be much more than what it could attain– or not- later on. (Kassioun Editorial, issue 616, August 25, 2013)
Aggression Threats, «the Nuclear and Chemical»
Within the rapid regional changes and developments, the American aggression against Syria, that was doomed to fail since its declaration, was deterred. «If Washington retreated and didn't make the assault, this would mean it's admission that a new international balance of forces was rising and that it accepted for itself a new role with a new size within a new world. This means as well that in the Syrian case Washington would humbly go to Geneva humiliated with concessions larger than what it had declared before». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 617, September 1, 2013) «and if Washington waged its raids against Syria, envisaging making a change in the balance of forces on the Syrian ground, no real change in this balance would be realized without an international and regional approval, despite the huge human and material costs Syria would endure. This means that any party that works on such a probability is in fact taking a decision to wage a huge regional conflict which limits couldn’t be ensured. Taking into account the realities of the same international balance of forces, the bigger loser in this case would be the United States and its camp, including "Israel". If the strikes were limited and didn't change the balance of forces on the Syrian ground, the scenario of refraining on waging them will not much differ from the limited targets scenario. But in fact, it would be much more catastrophic for the United States». (Ibid)
In order to reverse the direction of the US aggression towards Syria, the files of Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian chemical weapons were introduced as attacking steps to play, along with the American aggression hesitation, a pivotal role in surfacing the internal American administration cracks, between the fascist and rational currents, paving the way, as well, for the start of a new international alignment on the question of world peace. This alignment, however, is not finished yet, but it is moving quickly to outline the basic features of the coming relative-stability phase.
Shifting Balance.. Lost Opportunities
«We previously referred to the fact that the zero international balance provides an excellent condition for the internal Syrian patriotic opposition forces to enhance their relative weight in the general conflict equation, internationally, regionally and internally, and in the looming change. And we underlined that this condition is a pure Syrian opportunity that was not enjoyed by neither Tunisia, Egypt, nor Libya that lacked the major material carriers of such an opportunity, namely the new role played by the BRICS group, on one hand, and the existence of national opposition forces rejecting the external intervention, as well as insisting on the deep radical change of the structure of the current political regimes, on the other. If so, and back to the Syrian case, the delay in benefiting from this condition would necessarily result in letting the different external forces retain upper hands in the aspired-for solution, leading for what we consider as another level of internationalizing the Syrian crisis». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 589, February 11, 2013)
What had happened is the fact that so many chances had been lost. «One can list, among others, lifting the state of emergency legally and keeping it practically, not implementing the recommendations of the Consultative Meeting (of July 2011), the unilateral and outdated wooden mechanisms followed in the election of the local administration councils and the People's Assembly, the way of the formation of the governmental coalition that it could be, or rather should have been, a comprehensive national unity government, and not an alliance that freely does not commit itself to its own agreed-upon declaration, and before and during this, are the retardation, unilateralism and weakness of the official media approach and its absolute adoption of the so-called "decisiveness and breaking" statements». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 590, February 18, 2013)
By wasting these opportunities, one after another, an actual transformation into a higher and deeper level of the internationalization of the Syrian crisis was created; Syria became facing a new reality that does not stop at the infeasibility of the recurrent calls by the hardliners of the two sides to «decisiveness with the terrorist insurgents» or «bringing the regime down», but rather it had reached another fact that the internal field situation in Syria turned to be a direct reflection of the current international balance, taking into consideration that the Syrian borders were open to every kind of intervention that Syria lacked any ability to control without a framework of an ensuring international agreement.
Geneva vs. Continuous «Internal Syrian Burnout»
As a result of the pace of internationalizing the Syrian question, that was by itself a result of the insistence by the hardliners of both sides to reject the political solution, at first, and then approving it in public and hindering it behind doors, the gravity center of the Syrian case moved outside; the entire case turned to be a subject for the international and regional bickering, threatening with the continuation of burning Syria from inside that would lead to fulfilling the same American fragmentation goals, but without a direct US military intervention. That’s why it turned to be improbable to provide a way out of the current Syrian situation without relocating that gravity center to inside Syria, the issue that sums up the three tasks of «Geneva», i.e. «halting all forms of external intervention, reducing violence in order to stop it, and launching the political process». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 625, October 27, 2013) These jobs of Geneva are sequenced and interrelated, that is, stopping the external intervention would allow a reduction in the level of violence and in parallel would launch the internal political process, that in its progress would guarantee reducing violence to zero and moving towards the new Syria. In this context, combating terrorism in Syria would turn into a mission impossible without halting the external intervention, taking into consideration the fact that the main carriers of terrorism in Syria with its outside agendas' political violence are the Takfiri forces coming from overseas, in addition to some Syrians who are following the same course. It's quite notable here that all of those are different, in terms of their mentalities and war methods, from the Syrian armed groups, among whom there are voices that accept the political solution.
Who are «Geneva» Enemies and What do they Want?
Those affected by «Geneva» could be classified into external parties and internal ones. The external affected circles are the neo-Fascist or the holders of the criminal monopolistic financial capital whose exits out (of their own crisis) are narrowing more and more with the daily worsening of their crisis. Those insist on widening the range of war horizontally and vertically, as a sole hypothetical way out of their crisis, and they are exerting relentless efforts to divide Syria and to go on with its burning out.
The eternal affected circles, in contrast, are the gigantic corruption figures inside the regime, the opposition and society, who are sticking to the current Syrian state structure that allows them to continue with their plunder, and who lack any guaranty to keep it with a new structure that «Geneva» should be the starting point for the political strive to form. Added to those are the new giant «thieves», including the war merchants, living on the killings and pains of the Syrians, and all those dealing with the dirty jobs of every kind, whether emptying, packing and ultimately selling the furniture of the houses of the displaced, trading with the dollar and weapons, making food speculations, or those gaining commissions on detentions, abductions and other crimes». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 624, October 20, 2013)
«Going to Geneva, by itself, is not a solution for the Syrian crisis, rather the beginning for the solution. The coming national and political battle would not be easier than the ongoing one, rather it would be much harder and more complicated, a battle that requires the efforts and highest alerts by all Syrian patriots, regardless of their political positions, in order to consolidate Syria's popular and national integrity, and to hit the greater corrupted people and their objectives allies, whether those were members of ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) or similar terrorists organizations» (ibid)
What lies behind the positions of all the forces that are hindering or opposing the Syrian political solution is the fact that they are afraid of the political process, as this process, if it respects the true will of the Syrian people through the polls, will actually jeopardize their own future. And that’s why those forces are attempting to impose on the Syrians preemptive results of the political process, through trying to make a new portioning among the corrupt people inside the two parties in order to guarantee their ability to continue as a part of Syria's future.
Plan «B» vs. the Popular Mood
Since 2012, Kassioun had introduced many editorials to tackle the probability of having a coalition among the corrupt circles inside the two conflicting parties against the interests of the Syrian people. The title of Kassioun editorial, issue No.546, was «A Possible Counter Revolution under Dialogue»; this possibility is still there! And in its 587 editorial under the title «The Scenario of the Thieves», Kassioun wrote: «Washington stands for "toppling the regime" only because this slogan concretely means, in light of the experiences of our Egyptians and Tunisian brothers, overthrowing the president only, while preserving the given regime as it is, along with its corruption, dependence and retardation, and to worsen all these aspects with dismissing any national, anti-western orientation. The stalemate of this process in Syria opened the door for a new scenario with the same result, i.e. what they need is a nominal change in a "revolutionary" template, a change that would keep in essence the same socioeconomic and democratic the too low-profile aspects».
The same editorial elaborates: «The centerpiece in their much wanted scenario is to create a regime change in form, introducing an illusionary exit out of the current crisis, but keeping Syria permanently on the brinks of the crisis and its eminent explosions. Dismissing the poor and their representatives of the coming dialogue and political solution is a precondition to realize such a resentful scenario, as the poor strata and their representatives share one common understanding of the way out of the crisis, that is, having a deep radical change in the structure of the entire regime, a change that would put the thieves of the two sides in their due and well-deserved places».
The joints between the hardliners of the two formally contradictory parties cover up «a number of issues that are subtitles of the same theft doctrine. They share the same concept of democracy being conciliatory i.e., sectarian. They share their working tools atop of which is violence, as well as they share their liberal economic vision. And they wouldn't mind much in agreeing on bargaining with Syria's national constants». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 589, February 11, 2013)
Contrary to the will of the thieves of the two parties «the overwhelming plundered majority of the Syrian people, affected by the policies and fake promises of all the hardliners and corrupted figures, do want a stoppage of violence, not as an evasion of the due national battle, rather they look for their true battle, where the poor do not kill each other, but stand together against the thieves within the ranks of all the parties, and in order to preserve the unity of their country, realize the thorough and radical democratic and socioeconomic changes, enabling them from restoring the rights they were deprived of, and to confirm the institutional role of the Syrian Arab Army, being a major guaranty for Syria's national integrity, as a preparatory step towards making Syria move from Reluctance to Resistance that would lead to(occupied lands) Liberation». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 594, March 18, 2013)
The Goal Behind Escalation
Behind the recent escalatory operations lies a number of reasons, at the foremost of which are:
«1 - The bottleneck a number of the regional countries that support violence in Syria find themselves in. Those countries believe that having a political solution for the Syrian crisis would endanger their own future along with the further impacts of such solution on the regional equations. Atop the list of such states comes Saudi Arabia which is fully integrated with the world neo fascism and its center, i.e., the hardliners of the American administration, with their direct tools represented by the ISIS and similar organizations.
2 - The impasse faced by the Doha-formed NCS and by the international and regional forces that this structure represents their interests. The dilemma suffered by NCS lies in the fact that it is incapable of ensuring its future existence within any Syrian political process, as it deeply recognizes the weakness of its popular representation and it is aware of the fact that it would evaporate once violence and confrontation start to decline.
3 - The hardliners of the regime share the same crisis of the NCS; they fear the political process, particularly that it should lead to bringing about deep structural changes in the current regime. The only method for those to guarantee that such a process will not take place is to raise escalation to its highest levels, in order to turn Geneva Conference from a room to stop external intervention and violence, and to launch the political process, into a place to preempt the results of this process and impose them on the Syrians. Essentially, this makes no difference with the NCS aspirations, allowing the extremists of the two sides to maintain the existing regime in terms of its socioeconomic core through re-sharing and dividing the power between them. In this sense, the escalation on the ground plays a certain role of attempting a confiscation of Geneva outcomes before its convention, precisely blocking any real political process, based on the opinions of the Syrian people.
4 - Behind the attempts of the different hardliners to preempt the results of the conference and to delay or even cancel its convention, Washington, its camp and all the enemies of the Syrian people are the biggest beneficiaries of the continuity of depleting and exhausting Syria, to make it reach the international conference at its weakest modes». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 634, December 29, 2013)
The Political Solution: A Conflict of Agendas
The major hindrances before launching the political solution lies in the fact that the political weight of arms would decline once this solution starts. This would, in turn, limit the weights of the different political forces as measured by their popularity and integrated programs, politically, democratically and socioeconomically, after introducing those agendas to the Syrians to choose among them. The problem faced by the hardline forces is that they have, up till now, covered up their real programs under the humming of bullets. Having those echoes fade out would expose the flaws of those forces liberal agendas. As they already know the range of their popularity, they are attempting to anticipate and impose the results of the political process, as well as trying to get rid of whomever stands in front of their attempts. «The focus by the hardliners on whatever that might impede Geneva, using different pretexts to justify their fears or doubts in its feasibility, does reflect in essence their lacking of any true programs and plans, whether for the coming national unity government, for how to manage the interim period or for the shape of Syria in the future. This focus by some of those reflects their deep panic that they lose their plunder resources, the old ones and those accumulated during the crisis. That’s why they don’t make their bet on the future, rather on the present which they stick to it with teeth and nails». (Kassioun Editorial, issue 623, October 13,2013)
Opposition Forces and Programs
Different opposition frames have been emerging during the Syrian crisis. Many of them have witnessed upside-downs in their conditions and positions. With the impossibility of the direct external intervention, the Istanbul-formed SNC has been marginalized to be replaced by the Doha-formed NCS that recently accepted the political solution, despite the fact that it still expresses in its rhetoric its own understanding of the political solution, summed up by its assumption of power in Syria. In terms of its agenda, this structure doesn’t differ socioeconomically and democratically speaking from the existing regime. Both adopt economic liberalism, approve the existing election law, oppose the relative one-constituency electoral law, and both join the mentality of the «leading party». For its part, the National Coordination Organization is not far away from the previous characterizations, although it has attained a better condition through its rejection of both external intervention and violence. This rejection, however, have suffered from a number of missteps and faults.
The concentration during the last few months on having a «united opposition delegation», along with the inability to accomplish this so far, underline a number of facts, starting with Washington's confusion and inability to form a «weighty» political equivalent for its fragmentation scheme, and not ending with the deep and real frictions among the different opposition forces. This means that the option for having multiple opposition delegations is the only rational choice, so far.
If looking for a united opposition delegation under a direct American leadership aims at reproducing the Syrian crisis through reaching a form of sectarian-based and theft-sharing form of governance (in Syria), then among the stiffest opponents of that portioning process are the Peaceful Change Forces Coalition, the National Front for Change and Liberation and the People-want Party. And it's quite understandably that those sides have turned into a focal point for the crossfires by the two parties.
Attacking the PWP is, in depth, «a retaliation against a political line that steadily proceeded throughout the crisis to foil the plot by the plunders in the two sides to impose a new cake-sharing, camouflaged by certain facial changes, following the Tunisian/ Egyptian models, where the rest remains the same». (Kassioun Editorial, Issue No 586, January 21, 2013)
«Depending on its understanding of the international and internal force-balances, the PWP is insisting on rejecting the delusions of both "military decisiveness", on one hand, and "toppling the regime" on the other. That's why, the PWP insisted on having dialogue and political solution as an exit towards the real battle. In today's battle the poor are killing the poor, allowing the rich to divide their blood. In this sense, the political solution is only a tool that realigns the ranks to make a real revolution that radically, deeply and peacefully changes the regime in Syria, on the economic, social and democratic levels, along with consolidating Syria's anti-US-hegemony role and promoting it to resistance».
«Right from the beginning, the PWP has been denouncing the illusionary and naive division between a «supporter» and an «opponent», and it has been working on realizing a deep political, socioeconomic and democratic sorting, a process that would make the Syrians face the plunder and suppression system the hardliners and militias (Shabbiha and Dabbiha/ militias of the regime and the slaughterers of many military opposition groups) of the two conflicting sides belong. Such a sorting would declare the final ceremony for bedding the old political hemisphere farewell, allowing the birth for the new one. It should be a real categorization between the robbers and the robbed, between those who work to produce and those who suck and steal the labor of others. The robbers, who put multiple helmets, are trans-political, trans-sectarian and trans-ethnical. The robbed with their poverty and nakedness are also spread all over Syria. It's quite normal the thieves would attack such an understanding and approach of things, but if the robbed understand their similarities and align their ranks, the robbers will only have the needle hole, as their fleeing way». (Ibid)
If the international balance of forces back in 2006 didn't allow picking the fruits of the defeat of the Israeli June-aggression against Lebanon, today's balance would allow not only to benefit from the victories over the American-Zionist schemes on the regional levels, rather it would permit these victories reach and accelerate the same international balance of forces that runs not in service of the American and Zionist interests.