Partitioning is Easier for the Warlords than Implementing 2254

Sometimes the “partitioning” as a desired outcome was subtle, in that it seemed to be an “inevitable secondary side effect”, and other times pushing for it was glaringly obvious.

The latest example of the latter – that is, the glaringly obvious one – was in the so-called “Stop the Killing in Syria” bill introduced in the US Congress about 10 days ago, which proposed partitioning Syria economically into at least two pieces: a “free Syria” and a “regime Syria”.

These unremitting efforts by international actors, mainly openly by the West and the US and covertly by the Zionists, have been accompanied by the approval of extremists within the Syrian sides, whether directly or indirectly. Sometimes, this approval was exhibited through foolish “tactical” views, and other times through even more foolish “strategic” visions.

In some instances, approval of the partitioning approach was nearly blatant, by supporting and praising US actions, especially the sanctions and demanding that they be tightened in some parts of the country and lifted from other parts. Even more, exaggerating the rhetoric that a political solution is not possible or that it is too far, far and will not happen for many years to come, and therefore “the partitioning fait accompli should be dealt with as a long-term fait accompli”.

Other instances, the approval was implicit by ignoring the political solution and Resolution 2254, which coincided with the escalation of the bellicose and traitorous political discourse that distributes around accusations to everyone between those who are terrorists and those who are “far from the patriotic course”, which is monopolized by those who use this speech, repeating their slogans about resolving militarily and refusing dialogue, but using other expressions.

The “Syrian contribution” to partitioning does not stop at just the approval of others’ policies that feed into the partitioning but go further to actively taking steps to solidify the partition lines.

Converting the “Temporary” to “Permanent”

Among those steps, some exploited the reality of the absence of the state’s administrative apparatus in some areas, not to fill the void (which is normal and cannot be overlooked), but to turn this void into an excuse to create integrated systems of governance that are disconnected from other parts of Syria. Examples of that include things such as the push to create legal-political frameworks at the level of a “constitution”, “political parties’ law” and “elections”. The amusing thing is that those who are pushing in this direction, especially in the northwest, claim that they are creating a democratic model that competes in its “legitimacy” with the “legitimacy of the regime”.

However, the reality that Syrians know well is that the power of repression, arms, and the few groups of the elite warlords and the great corruption forces are the ones who control on the ground, not in a particular region of Syria, but in all parts of Syria alike. Those in particular are the ones who ensure that they have a cover within the existing laws or newly created ones, to legitimize their control, and to continue silencing the voices of Syrians, always and forever under the slogan “no sound rises above the sound of the battle”; the battle, the continuation of which has become an existential condition for warlords from all sides.

Other steps along the same lines, and which have been more starkly evident, include proposals to establish a “center” that would be a counterpart for Damascus, accompanied by elections in parallel. These elections would not be controlled by the security forces, but by armed factions including al-Nusra.

These proposals come from those who welcomed using a different currency in the areas they want to turn into “Northern Syria” and establishing a constitutional order that suits their aspirations to become a second version of what they claim to be against.

These proposals, naturally, are accompanied with diligent efforts to undermine the political process by publicly declaring over and over again that the Constitutional Committee is failing or is pointless, an effort that is supported by the “opposite” side with continuing to use stalling tactics, all in the hopes of serving a final blow to shut the door on UNSC Resolution 2254, and throw the key of implementing it in a sea of “elections” that separate the Syrian regions from each other, temporarily or even permanently.

Regarding the American-Zionist Role Again

Once again, we cannot address issues of the kind that we discussed above without keeping our eyes open to the US-Zionist and also British policies regarding Syria.

It is always worthwhile to remember that what some extremists are doing these days is essentially nothing but the literal implementation of the plans of the US-based think tank RAND, which more over four years ago spoke of “change from the bottom up” through “local elections”, each area of influence alone and apart from other areas (see “RAND – Al Nusra”… Pandora’s Box!).

We also cannot forget Jeffrey’s main pillars in his work:

First, the quest to legitimize al-Nusra (see The Comedic Play Starring the Trio: Jeffrey, Malley, and Jolani)

Second, my job is to make Syria a quagmire for the Russians (see Regarding “Caesar”, “RAND”, and the Northeast and the Kurdish-Kurdish Dialogue)

Third, stalemate is stability (see Jeffrey Wants the “Quagmire Mission” to Go on… “Stalemate is Stability”)

Fourth, the war of everyone against everyone (see In Light of Jeffrey’s Remarks, is Washington an Ally of Turkey or the Kurds?)

Fifth, partitioning (see The New US Bill… and the Junk Bin)

Moreover, the recent proposed US bill provides a clear example of entirely putting aside the idea of a political solution, and not addressing at all either the Geneva Communique or UNSC Resolution 2254. This is the actual policy of the Americans and the Zionists, not only now, but all the time.

(Arabic version)