Dr. Jamil: Implementing UNSCR 2254 is Necessary to Preserve Syria’s Unity Obstructing the Political Solution Amounts to National Treason

The following is the full text of the introductory comments at the press conference, as well as the questions and answers that followed.

During the past five months, the months of the Coronavirus, the Syrian political process was frozen, which should have moved through the Constitutional Committee as a starting point. However, I asked myself a serious question that now I am asking you: assuming we did not have this epidemic, this quarantine, and this cessation of movement among countries, would the work of the Constitutional Committee have gone well?

Based on our experience and what we had seen, I think that the previous obstruction could have continued, and therefore with or without the Coronavirus, I am not sure the work of the Constitutional Committee will go well, as long as the prevailing mentality exists and continues among the parties of interest within the opposition and the regime.

Obstruction Methods                             

We must say things for what they are. We have suffered from the obstruction methods that were employed in the work of the Constitutional Committee. One of these methods was the preconditions from both sides. The second method, in which is one of the parties excels, is to drown discussions in worthless details and issues to waste time.

The third method is pointless media altercations between the parties, which reached the level of pettiness. Part of the opposition delegation calls the government delegation (or the delegation supported by the government, as it is named by the government) the “Iranian delegation”. While the government delegation calls the opposition delegation the “Turkish delegation”. We have reached this point. Can we reach a constructive and effective discussion in such an atmosphere?

Media altercations aim to create an atmosphere of gaining or preserving supporters; their goal is not to move forward in resolving the Syrian crisis.

The fourth method was the delay in agreeing on the agenda. Can you believe that until now there has been no final agreement on the agenda? There has been agreement only on a broad title for the agenda. Another method, and not the last, is refusing to hold a virtual meeting amid the Coronavirus pandemic. The regime refused it, and the opposition refrained from it.

Additionally, the unserious behavior, I might even say “boyish” behavior in the meeting room, was a form of obstruction. Therefore, we know the obstruction methods are and we have memorized them. If we want to keep in mind the interest of the Syrian people who suffer greatly, we must look with hope at the alleged meeting – if it is held on August 24 as the UN has said – but past experience also makes us look at it with caution at the same time. Cautiously because of the possibility that it may get delayed, and caution if it is held that the obstructors will use the previous obstruction methods or invent new ones.

Obstruction is Treason

I believe that obstructing the work of the Constitutional Committee, which has practically become the preamble of the political process required by Security Council Resolution 2254 in the current circumstances of Syria and the Syrians, amounts to national treason. This is because the situation inside is deteriorating day-after-day, as a result of the absence of a political solution – the absence of the political process, and this, as we see, is reflected first health-wise in the spread of the Coronavirus left and right, in a large and frightening manner. We also see this reflected in the decline of the Syrian pound and its collapse against the dollar, along with the abysmal increase in prices, accompanied with the frightening immobility of wages, which has made the lives of Syrians unbearable. This is understandable in the current circumstances because the continuation of the blockade, the continuation of the sanctions, and the continuation of the separation of Syria across several regions controlled by different forces, all of these things in practice complicate the situation.

If we are to proceed from the interest of the Syrian people and the interest of our country, then all parties are required to bear that in mind, and to transcend and rise above the attempt to obtain narrow short-term or medium-term political gains, because what is at stake today is the fate of Syria and the fate of the Syrian people.

Delaying 2254 Endangers Syria’s Unity

I want to add that the situation is getting complicated by the fact that the areas still unfortunately managed by different de facto administrations, are three regions: Northeast, Idlib, and the rest of the country.

We had accepted this at the time as a temporary matter in order to stop the fighting, but continuing this for a long period of time is dangerous, because de facto partition could become permanent, and that means implementing the “imperial-Israeli-Zionist” plans and their dreams of dividing Syria, so should we help them in that?

Therefore, delaying the implementation of 2254 is even a threat to the country’s unity. If we add to this that the regional situation is deteriorating – the recent events in Lebanon are evidence of that – there is tension and we do not know where things will go. At the global level, it is clear that the forces of foreign intervention, which are the old colonial forces, are trying today to find new forms of interfering in the affairs of our peoples. The content remains the same and the form changes. Macron’s recent visit to Lebanon is evidence of that, in which there is blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Lebanese people. What does all this mean?

2254: Stopping Foreign Intervention and the Right to Self-Determination

If the Constitutional Committee meeting takes place on August 24, this will be a good step for starting the political process as a whole, which was stipulated in Security Council Resolution 2254, which is based on three basic provisions:

1- Starting the political transition process

2- A new constitution

3- Elections at all levels: presidential and parliamentary.

Therefore, if this process does not start, I believe we will face new and great risks.

In practice, 2254 means stopping foreign intervention and transferring the right to self-determination and managing its affairs to the Syrian people. Internally, it means not only cessation of fighting, but also reconciliation among the components of the Syrian people that have disagreed greatly in the past period. Therefore, we, in the Moscow Platform, see that the Constitutional Committee is just a first step, and a journey of a thousand miles start with one step, and the thousand miles are still waiting for those who will take their first step on it. Therefore, we appeal to everyone to overcome the trivial things and move on to the substance and the content. We, in the Moscow Platform, see that a serious discussion of the constitution opens up serious horizons for the subsequent progress in Syria.

Our Proposals for the Discussion

We have our proposals, and the main ones focus on three matters:

1- Discussion about the form of government: There is a discussion taking place about the form of government, whether it should be presidential, parliamentary, presidential-parliamentary, meaning mixed, etc. However, all of this, once decided, right away requires a redistribution of authorities among the three known branches of power: legislative, executive, and judicial.

One of the causes of the crisis in Syria is clearly a flaw in this balance among the different branches of power in favor of the presidency, the supreme executive authority. The People's Council, for example, until now, and which was recently elected, still does not have the powers in accordance with the current constitution to give the motion of confidence to the government. The government comes, issues its statement, and leaves, and no vote of confidence therein takes place.

I believe that this matter has become repugnant, unacceptable, and harmful, and life has proven it to be very harmful because the government in this situation is not accountable before the parliament that is elected by the people. Therefore, governance must first be considered in the constitution in terms of power distribution and redistributing authorities between the presidency-government and the legislative power.

This requires reaching consensus, discussing, and delving in depth on the issues at hand. We, in the Moscow Platform, see that the ideal form today is not the current one – manifold presidential, presidential-presidential, nor the 100% classic parliamentary form. Certainly, the parliamentary form is wonderful if we can reach it, but the problem in Syria is that for half a century we have suffered from a lack of political freedoms, which has weakened the political experience and expertise of the political forces first and the public second.

Therefore, moving directly to a parliamentary state can only result in great chaos in the country at a time when we need to strengthen national unity, preserve the country’s unity, and rebuild – all this requires a certain amount of centralization of powers. On the other hand, the presidential system should not be as before; we can justify it in the early stages of its formation because the state was in the process of formation, but fifty years after completion of building its basic infrastructure, it has become unreasonable and not possible for the presidential authorities to remain the same – they must be reconsidered. What does it mean that they should not remain the same? It means real and effective redistribution thereof with the other branches of power.

2- This topic leads to an important issue that is the subject of discussion today: the relationship between centralization and decentralization in the Syrian state.

The Syrian regime is centralized, square or cubic. This has many damages and disadvantages, as experience has shown. Its damages to the regions are enormous, because the development of these areas has been lagged due to the high concentration of power in the centers, which prompted some, due to their fear of centralization of power, to demand absolute decentralization. Absolute decentralization is also a problem in Syria, because after all that has happened, it does not guarantee the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

In brief, we see the equation as follows: absolute centralization means a state without a people with rights; and absolute decentralization means a people without a state or a center. Therefore, we are searching – and call upon everyone to search – for the golden balanced and logical for the equation between centralization and decentralization. However, this cannot be done by any one political party, ministry, or individual. This matter needs a wide discussion among all the political and social components of the Syrian people, in order to determine the powers and rights of the center and of the peripheries.

The peripheries and regions should be delegated with broad powers in a way that guarantees centralization of the state, because powers to the peripheries without a center means, as I already said, no state. I think that is something that no one wants.

3- There is also an issue that the previous Syrian constitutions have overlooked and did not pay attention to, which is the electoral system that has remained unknown and deferred to the law. Who makes the law? The People’s Council.

We believe that the authority should now be obligated by a fair, comprehensive, and impartial election law that adopts proportionality and the entire country as a single district. This text must be constitutional so that no one can deviate from it, and a detailed law could then be drafted.

In the same context, we believe that in addition to Parliament (the council of the people’s representatives), a second chamber must be established, that is a senate, in which the different regions are represented. As is known from the global-historical experience, authorities are divided between the two chambers.

We believe the debate should focus on these three points, because this discussion is a serious one that yields results and gives guarantees for the subsequent progress towards getting out of the crisis in Syria.

The Necessities for Implementing 2254

Proceeding with the discussing the constitution means moving forward with the implementation of Resolution 2254. The Resolution in essence means the right of the Syrian people to self-determination, and its implementation requires the lifting of the unjust sanctions on Syria. These sanctions did not harm the ruling elite, rather, elite groups in the country benefited from them, because through smuggling they gained new ways to make more. Sanctions hit the Syrian people. And now, with the Caesar Act, sanctions are getting tighter, and they are hurting the Syrian people a lot and will lead to tragic consequences.

Therefore, the implementation of the Resolution requires lifting the sanctions and the blockade imposed on Syria, just as the implementation of this Resolution automatically means linking the regions of Syria with each other and reconfiguring the single economic market. The implementation of this Resolution will also pave the way for entry of UN humanitarian aid to help the Syrian people, especially currently to confront the Coronavirus pandemic.

Additionally, the implementation of Resolution 2254 means stopping the economic decline and breathing a new life into the Syrian pound so that it can rise from its suppression and improve its position because this will improve the living conditions for millions – 90% of the Syrian people who are suffering in the current circumstances.

Who Will Implement 2254?

The pertinent question that can and must be asked is: Who will implement Resolution 2254?

I think that the main responsibility will be borne by the regime. It must take the initiative to assume its name as a regime, in order to assume its responsibility, for it to deserve being called a regime. However, if the regime does not bear this responsibility, what is the solution? Who can implement this resolution?

I believe that the international community that adopted this resolution in addition to the Syrian people can find the alternatives required for its implementation.

Transferring the Constitutional Committee to Damascus

We, the Moscow Platform, on our part and in one of the sessions of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, asked to transfer the committee’s meetings to Damascus. I am revealing a secret now if I say that we requested this (which caused some of the opposition sides to rise against us) with the aim of testing the regime’s intentions to proceed with the constitutional reform demanded by the Sochi Conference at the time and which was supported by the UN.

Till now, after we threw this test balloon with the request to transfer the Constitutional Committee and its work to Damascus, we have not heard, noticed, nor sensed any reaction from the regime. It is as if the regime is seeking to stall and obstruct the work of the Constitutional Committee so that it takes as much time as possible.

What is the problem with transferring the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus if the UN will guarantee the safety of all those who will participate in the work, and today not only security safety is required but also health security?

Transferring the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus means confirming the seriousness of its work. It also means that there is no longer a justification for the work of the Constitutional Committee to remain in an endless vicious circle.

Moving it to Damascus will force everyone to reach the end of the discussions in the Constitutional Committee. Therefore, we repeat our proposal and ask our colleagues in the opposition who were agitated by our proposal to reconsider their position, and we ask the other side, “the government”, to look at it seriously, and the meetings to move as soon as possible to Syria.

I have said it more than once: can a Syrian constitution be drafted in Geneva?

A debate about it can start in Geneva, but it must be drafted in Damascus, and the Constitutional Committee now exists and has been approved by the UN with the support of the Security Council, and this Constitutional Committee now has a particular legitimacy, so its transfer to Damascus must take place, with guarantees of course, but discussing and drafting the constitution must take place in Damascus so that members of the Constitutional Committee can later look into the eyes of their children and grandchildren and say to them, “Yes, this constitution we wrote in Damascus – in Syria.” We are the ones who helped drafting six Arab constitutions. We in Syria wrote the first constitution in the Arab world in 1920 and now we go and write our constitution abroad?

This is not appropriate. I said that starting the debate could be abroad, but the continuation of the work on the Constitutional Committee should only take place inside.

Once again, I revealed that the matter is a test of intentions: Let the regime prove to us that it is serious and agree to transfer the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus, and let the opposition prove to us that it is not serious and does not agree to transfer the work of the Committee to Damascus.

We, on our part, in the Moscow Platform, and as an essential part of the opposition in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254, demand that.

Enough with the excuses and other ungodly reasons to prevent moving the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus. I ask for the support of the UN and the guarantor friends in the Astana Group, meaning “Iran-Russia-Turkey”, to secure the necessary guarantees for the transfer of the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Regarding the recent parliamentary elections, and your evaluation of them and their role?

For our part in the People’s Will Party and the Front for Change and Liberation, our position frankly was to ignore these elections. We did not participate, neither nominating nor voting, because we know that the atmosphere is not an elections’ atmosphere. The stated percentage of voters is 33%, but in fact it is much lower. If we take the number of refugees outside Syria, who number in the millions, the percentage will fall sharply.

The problem is not in the percentage, albeit low. The problem is that this parliament according to this constitution does not have any authority, so what will it change? Nothing.

Therefore, in our opinion, these elections are meaningless, except from one angle that is of great importance for the regime, which is to prove that it still has legitimacy and that it will continue. However, we must understand that any legitimacy derives itself from two things. First, from the people’s recognition, and 33% is a number that is neither high mor real.

Secondly, the real legitimacy comes from the ability of any country or any government to solve the problems that require to be solved for the people. Today we have problems everywhere and in everything, and the government is unable to solve anything in the current circumstances, and therefore we have not paid any attention or time to this issue, and we will not start to do so now. To us, this is final.

Regarding the Caesar Act, do you expect that the EU will be able to pursue an independent policy from the US in Syria?

The Europeans are incapable, immature, and unprepared to pursue a policy independent of the US. They have so far followed the US, and the US behavior determines their behavior to a large extent. At best they are silent or resentful, but their capacity for real action is absent, so even the Caesar Act in current circumstances could temporarily lead to complications for the Europeans. Hence, the importance of speeding up the political solution according to Resolution 2254 becomes greater because, in practice, it withdraws from the hands of the US and others all the excuses for the continuation of the sanctions.

Please comment on the attack on the Khmeimim air base with long-range missile launchers and drones. Is this an attempt to strain the situation before the Constitutional Committee session in Geneva?

The terrorists did not stop once from trying to push things towards instability, and I believe that the main factor that drives them to carry out terrorist operations against the Khmeimim air base is the tragic situation in which they find themselves with no way out, especially in Idlib. This is because the Astana agreement and the Russian-Turkish agreement in Idlib have reached advanced phases in implementation, where it has been able to open the M4 highway, and vigorous attempts are made to weaken the understandings between the three Astana parties. Therefore, I look at all the attempts to increase instability in the region, not in connection with this or that transitory event, but in connection with the general development of matters that put the terrorists in the corner in the strategic sense.

The US Congress published news about the situation in Syria, about the Kurds in Syria, and it says that the Kurds are getting closer to Damascus, does that mean that the central government may regain control over the north and east of the country? I would like to hear your comment on this issue.

The issue of northeastern Syria is like the issue of Idlib, and there can be no solution to it except within the framework of a comprehensive agreement on the Syrian crisis based on Resolution 2254. Until now, all attempts at bilateral discussions between northeastern Syria and Damascus have not yielded results and are always being obstructed. However, I think that if it moves into the framework of the comprehensive Syrian dialogue within the framework of implementing 2254, it will be a good thing because it guarantees resolving all problems, but this does not prevent the pursuit of an understanding between the Syrian government and the forces in northeastern Syria.

Nevertheless, these attempts have not yielded the desired positive result thus far due to the intervention of many forces, the US on one side and radical forces on both sides – extremist forces in the regime and on the other side. I think, and I am sure, and we can prove this soon, that many forces on both sides insist on the unity of Syria. Hopefully, we will be able to make progress within the framework of the understanding among these forces and all the patriotic Syrian forces that want to solve the Syrian problem.

US forces in northern Syria get attacked here and there. Some believe that the source of the attacks is the local tribes that found themselves under the occupation of the US and its allies; some say that this is a matter of sharing resources; who is carrying out these attacks?

They are the people of the region. No one invited the US to Syria. They came and stationed primarily in the areas where there is oil, in the eastern regions. Therefore, the people of these areas have the full right, on the basis of international law, to resist and to use all forms of resistance, and I believe that the US understood this point, so they sought some time ago to reduce the number of their forces in Syria.

What is the role of the Kurds in US policy? How has their role changed lately?

The US is trying to play a role, but with their policy in the region, especially towards the Kurds, and as history has proven, they are hypocrites and liars. They have repeatedly promised the Kurds and have broken their promises, and there are dozens of examples. Therefore, I think that the confidence of the Kurds and the Kurdish people everywhere, especially in Syria and Iraq, in the US has declined to a large extent, because their promises are one thing and their actions another.

But the question is what is the role drawn for the Kurds in US policy?

In one of our party’s documents, we said early on that if the role of ISIS receded and began to decline, then the West that historically caused the Kurdish problem since the Sykes-Picot period will try to fuel the Kurdish cause in order to fuel the conflict among the brotherly peoples who have lived together for thousands of years, I mean Kurds, Turks, Arabs, and Persians.

We had expected, before this wave appeared, a blatant Western intervention that sheds crocodile tears for the Kurds in order to create instability and implement creative chaos. We expected this and this is what happened.

Unfortunately, they were able to deceive some of them for some time, but they could not deceive everyone all the time.

Now the US cards and their attempt to use the Kurds as a card for one time have been greatly exposed, and therefore, I doubt that they can use the card as they used it a year or two or three or four ago; even in Iraq, I think that things are going in this direction.

In the end, the US is suffering from a deep crisis, and it is redistributing its forces in the world. It is withdrawing from the region from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and from Germany. US presence is decreasing numerically, and according to a statement by one US official in the State Department, James Jeffrey, “Our numbers are few because arithmetic numbers are required to play a role in the equations in the region.”

In other words, if we compare the current US role with the historical examples in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where they sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and we compare that with their current role, there is a significant decrease. In the end, the decision is for whoever has the greatest power on the ground. They use their forces to maneuver and cause problems among everyone to prolong their survival as much as possible and to delay their permanent exit, but in the end the inevitable will happen.

The Kurdish people have suffered a lot, primarily from Western colonialism, which tried to delude them that their enemies were their historical neighbors and brothers. However, the real enemy is the West that created the Kurdish problem, and which does not want to solve it because it is “Othman’s shirt”, as it is said in Arabic (using another’s suffering for one’s personal gain).

Will US policy in Syria change after the US presidential elections, or not? At the moment, according to opinion polls, Biden is far ahead of Trump, meaning that the Democrats will return to the White House, so what are your assessments and expectations?

Astrologers are liars even if what they say is true. Here expectations are worthless, because regardless of whether it is Biden or Trump, a fundamental change in US policy will not take place. In essence, they implement one policy, but the form of implementing it for each side differs from the other in some details.

What will differ between Trump and Biden, and remember my words later, is only the difference between the speed and acceleration of the withdrawal from the region.

If Trump wins, the withdrawal will be faster, and if Biden wins, the withdrawal will be slower and under the pretext of regrouping and redeploying forces, but it is a withdrawal from the whole region. They will keep pivot points and leave room for creative chaos, but they know that they must redeploy their forces throughout the world as a result of changing priorities.