Waiting for International Consensus… and Let the Country and its People Go to Hell!

Waiting for International Consensus… and Let the Country and its People Go to Hell!

“The Syrian crisis will not be resolved until there is international consensus on the solution, and specifically American-Russian consensus”.

This saying has been spreading widely within Syrian politicians on both sides of the fence, and to some extent among the general public.

Perhaps the most dangerous thing in the matter is that this “saying” is being presented as an axiom, and as an absolute, simple, and inevitable truth, and there is no need to discuss its validity at all.

What does this saying mean?

If we try to carefully examine what this saying means, or rather the rationale mechanisms it holds within its folds, then several things pop up before us:

1- Our role as Syrians, opposition or regime or society as a whole, is a marginal and worthless role; in short, we are powerless.

2- Since this is the case, then lack of international consensus is tantamount to a clearance certificate for politicians, whether in the regime or in the opposition.

3- Until there is consensus, we have to wait (some) time – months, years, decades – and while we wait, reality does not wait and it continues moving, and for the worse. In the event that Syria is completely fragmented and its existence is ended within this “time while waiting for international consensus”, then none of what happens is our fault.

4- While it is true that millions of Syrians suffer on a daily basis from poverty, hunger, disease, cold, and lack of security, wherever they may be living, nevertheless and again: it is not our fault, as there is no international consensus yet.

It is possible to go further in drawing conclusions from the saying “waiting for international consensus”, but we will suffice with the above. Let us then move on to draw attention to an amusing thing that happened about two weeks ago; presenting this would be useful in deepening the understanding of this “waiting” policy.

On the sidelines of one of the opposition meetings recently, and within the framework of a meeting with representatives of Western countries, an American diplomat expressed her “advice to the opposition” through the following idea: “When taming unruly horses, the unruly horse is tied up for a period of time, which could be long or short, until its agitation subsides, and it becomes possible to tame it. If the tamer loses his patience, he will lose the battle. The opposition must be patient until the taming process is completed”. The horse in question is the regime, and the mechanisms of tying it up are Western sanctions and pressures.

That is, the American’s advice is exactly: “Wait, remain as you are, do nothing, and wait”. This American who offers this type of advice and urges perseverance and steadfastness, also urges mental idleness. That is: there is no need to take any initiative, no need to think, and the result is guaranteed, it is just a matter of time; one should not pay attention to the extent of the pains, whimpers, and daily losses that Syrians suffer wherever they are living, and there should be no accountability for the sanctions and those who impose them for their role in this ongoing tragedy; everything has a price and Syrians should pay it.

This same American, who says to part of the opposition “wait” and sends them very junior representatives, is forming another opposition in Washington under the names of “civil society” and “businessmen” and celebrates them with slightly less junior representatives.

More important than the US’ celebration of these people, it is proceeding with them and with the extremists from the other side, within the policy declared years ago, called “changing the regime’s behavior” and through “step for step”, which ultimately aims at two clear things: 1) prolonging and deepening the crisis and perpetuating the de facto division, and 2) keeping Syria a quagmire for the Russians and Iranians, leading to pushing them out of it after completing Syria’s division and repositioning it regionally in relation to the Zionist entity.

Does the above have any relation to UNSC Resolution 2254? Yes, it has a direct relationship to the fact that it completely contradicts UNSC Resolution 2254, and completely contradicts the idea of a political solution that preserves the unity of the country and its people, and enables these people to determine their own destiny.

Anyone objectively following the role of the US, and the West in general, in Syria, and in other crises, over the past decades, especially with the new old Palestinian example, and in its stark form we are witnessing today, where Western democratic propaganda turns into a worthless farce, and the alleged humaneness turns into unparalleled brutality, barbarism, and vileness, would not miss that Washington does not want a political solution in Syria, nor does it want stability there. Rather, what Washington exactly wants is complete hybrid chaos throughout the entire region.

We must always recall that the stability of this region is in the direct interest of the rising powers and the main regional powers – except for the Zionists, of course. The stability of our region means pushing the door wide open to the completion of the implementation of the Belt and Road and the Eurasian project, and it also means stopping the attrition of all the main regional powers, which will constitute an essential support of the new international system. Here we mean the intersection of interests among Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, as the most important powers in our region, with the interests of rising international powers.

All of this is against the interest of the US, which no longer has a project to offer the world except wars, devastation, divisions, and chaos. The US, which has relied for 80 years on the fact that its most important product is merely “dollar” bills, with which it unjustly controls the world’s wealth and economies, is no longer able to go back to real production, even on the political and intellectual level, and its product has become loaded with lies, exaggeration, and hypocrisy.

Returning to the Syrian situation, and if we assume that the US will “one day” abandon “divine power” its destructive strategy that includes the entirety of the Middle East, in the interest of the strategy of its enemies, that is, in the interest of the strategy of calm and stability, the question will remain: when could this “day” could be, and when can there be consensus, based on which the crisis in Syria be resolved?

Once again, the nature of the ongoing conflict globally says that such a consensus will not happen for many years, if ever. The conflict is ongoing and constantly escalating, and the nature of the structural crisis that Western, and particularly dollar, hegemony is experiencing makes this conflict a struggle for survival and existence. Therefore, it is not expected in any way that a consensus will be reached soon, and it is also not expected that the consensus – if it is reached – will take a traditional form similar to previous international consensuses.


If we wait, will reality wait?

If we accept the hypothesis adopted by many circles, which says that the solution passes exclusively through an international consensus between West and East, between the Americans and the Russians, and if we also accept that our current role is to “be patient and wait” – the truth is that the main patient side is the Syrian people and not a portion of the political elite , especially the extremists, for whom the years of crisis pass smoothly and pleasantly, and whose situation even improves from year to year, whether those inside Syria in any of its regions or outside it – then the one who made the decision to wait, should at least be responsible for its consequences, and not benefit from those consequences.

In any case, if we accept that what is required is to wait, then how long is that wait and what can happen during it? Will reality wait and remain as is? Will the Americans who are demand waiting also wait?

Reality will not remain as is. The possibilities of dividing Syria permanently and ending it altogether are increasing with every additional day of delay; more Syrians are being displaced; the economic situation is declining on a daily basis; the educational situation is deteriorating; social decadence in all its forms and in all regions of Syria is increasing on a daily basis as a direct result of the dominance of the criminal black economy, which is being adopted and encouraged by both Western sanctions, and by the highly corrupt individuals and extremists within the regime and the opposition.

Reality will not remain as is. The Americans, who are promising some of those in the opposition that “patience is the key to power”, are cooking another recipe for Syria, in which there is basically no presence or role for these delusional people who are given these promises. In this context, it is useful to go back to an article published in February of this year in Kassioun, titled: “From ‘Changing the Regime’s Behavior’ to ‘Step for Step’, Where Are the Under-the-Table Agreements with the West Today?

This matter in itself, that is, the marginalization of the portion of the opposition that was previously baptized and promoted, should not surprise anyone. It only surprises that portion itself, which says: “What is going on and why? We have implemented the recipe in its entirety: we rejected dialogue, we rejected the political solution, we called for armament, we called for foreign intervention and for no-fly zones, and when that did not work and you did not intervene militarily in the desired manner, we formally agreed to the political solution in the hope that you would politically break the Russians and others in Syria, so we would reach the desired result in another way. You – the West – are the guilty ones; we did what was required of us within the division of tasks, and you are the ones who did not do your part. In Iraq and Libya you did your part, but in Syria you did not, and we are waiting for you to do it”.


So, what to do?

It should be understood that the extremists from all Syrian sides are always the ones who were closest to the West, and their tendencies have always been Western, whether declared or undeclared. The truth is that this tendency is mostly declared by all these extremist sides, as those who do not declare their tendency in a politically solid and clear manner, they fully declare it economically by complying with the IMF and World Bank recipes, and partially politically.

This is on the one hand, and on the other hand, Syrian patriots, regardless of their alignments, should start understanding the interests of states in Syria through the interests of those states and not from their own wishes. An objective look at the nature of the global conflict and the nature of interests leads to a clear conclusion that instability and deepening instability, including division, in Syria, is an American-Zionist interest. On the other hand, the interest of the Astana tripartite, China, and major Arab countries is to achieve stability in Syria and end its crisis. Therefore, the theoretically possible regional-international umbrella for resolving the Syrian crisis is characterized by the following characteristics:

  • Its nucleus is the Astana tripartite.
  • It requires a degree of consensus between the Astana tripartite and key Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
  • It certainly includes China’s presence, whether behind the scenes or at the table.
  • As for the US, its presence means not reaching a solution, and therefore the best position for the US in relation to the umbrella necessary to resolve the crisis in Syria is for them to be outside it, and let them do whatever they want, as they are already doing that.


What should be concretely done?

The patriotic portion of the opposition must take the initiative and block the path to American-Zionist action, through courageous and principled initiatives. The call to transfer the work of the Constitutional Committee to Damascus under UN supervision and with Astana guarantees, is just one example of the type of initiatives required, which should amass around it the largest number of plundered Syrians distributed under opposition and loyalist labels, while they constitute more than 90% of Syrians.

Even for those who are opportunists and who work primarily for their interests, it must be said: an opportunist must be smart and understand the direction of changing realities and the direction of changing balances.

(النسخة العربية)