The debate has been getting more heated recently about the different perceptions for the new Syria. What this means with regards to the nature of the political system in Syria, and by implication the nature of the relationship among the three branches of government, as well as the question of the relationship between centralization and decentralization.
As the overall American crisis deepens with its various dimensions – economic, social, political, and even cultural and ideological – its repercussions frequently reflect on Washington’s foreign policies.
Extremism in the public political field can be simply defined as being detached from reality, manifested by insisting on raising unattainable slogans. The extremists, over time, reach a satisfactory and chronic state of denial. We can see this in the Syrian case with an endless number of examples and it does not stop at the limits of “settling matters” (as in the regime settling things militarily) and “toppling” (as in toppling the regime).
Since the moment of its issuance in late 2015, the UNSC Resolution 2254 has represented a condensed expression of two fundamental issues. The first is the new international balance of power by which the global US-Western bullying is over, which consequently means the end of the era characterized by imposition of the forms of governance and economy on independent states from outside, whether this was used to be done through direct traditional colonialism, various forms of neo-colonialism, or through variant and complex combinations of both.
Today, the sixth of March 2020, Mikhail Bogdanov, Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for the Middle East and African Countries, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia received the representative of the leadership of the Syrian opposition Front for Change and Liberation, the head of the Moscow Platform of the Syrian opposition, Kadri Jamil.
The blockers of political solution, the Westerners and their followers and supporters in the various parties, have been accustomed to be in solidarity with each other along the past bitter years. Their plan has always been to keep the suspended files on hold, while using one file at a time as the main tool for hindering, while pretending to be flexible with the other files.
In the morning of the 30th of December, 2018, a press release was issued on behalf of the Information Office of the Syrian Negotiation Commission (SNC), protesting against the return of relations with Syria by some Arab countries, calling on those countries to review their positions and asking for their support to stand with the SNC.
The Talk about a "democratic" decentralization has come back to the fore again, in the context of what is being promoted as "a new American strategy". There are, among those carrying this banner, not only some Kurdish leaders but also personalities and other Syrian parties, some of them are ancient «Arab nationalist» ones, although the main apparent vehicle of such a proposition, so far, are some Kurdish leaders.
The extremists live in a state of reassurance about the internationalization of the Syrian issue. They know, as everyone knows, that the international clash is not only about Syria – though Syria has become at the top of its agenda – but also about a new reformulation of the whole international relations. It is a clash that will not end in the near future, but will take several more years to reach its logical ends.
A statement was issued today on behalf of the Syrian Negotiating Commission on the work done during its periodic meeting. Our representative has recorded his objection to two points in the statement. His objection has not been taken into consideration by the Commission. It is therefore necessary to clarify that our position on these two points is contrary to the position mentioned in the Commission's statement:
