Syrian Sovereignty… and the Presidency
Over the last three years, the West has stopped repeating phrases it had used for five years or more – phrases such as: “Assad must go” – and replaced them with phrases of the type: “We do not want to change the regime, but to change its behavior.” Moreover, on March 19th, Trump used the expression “the Syrian government” accompanied with a highly friendly tone, while announcing that he sent a message thereto.
Last week, the initial rhetoric resurfaced via James Jeffrey and other Western officials, who intentionally linked their new statements to a set of critical articles that had appeared in Russian media over the last two months.
A true understanding of Western objectives should take into account the following:
First, the West’s action to reduce the popular movement from its inception, by narrowing its demands through personalization, was intentional. The purpose is to push Syria to one of two possibilities; either the Libyan / Iraqi model, whereby the entire country is overthrown in the name of overthrowing the authority, or the Tunisian / Egyptian model, where the authority is overthrown but the regime remains unchanged, that is, the large vicious corruptors remain and economic dependency on the West continues.
Secondly, the firm Russian-Chinese entry, initially in a diplomatic form and then with the direct Russian military involvement. The West was slowly forced to change its plans. From the West’s perspective, it became necessary to maintain the state of attrition for as long as possible, including replacing slogans and moving on to attempting to “legitimize the fait accompli”: Syria remains divided into three regions, which are depleted on the humanitarian and economic levels, and ready to explode at any moment. US attempts to legitimize al-Nusra, Trump’s message to the Syrian government, and working to perpetuate the isolation of the northeast, all fall within the same framework.
Thirdly, with al-Nusra’s complete termination approaching, along with the imminence of resolving the northeastern dossier within the framework of the unity of Syrian territory and peoples, and the indications of closing in on the start of the implementation of Resolution 2254, the West found itself in a situation that compels it again to change their tactic: back to personalization of issues – i.e., tying them to a figure or a person.
What must be clearly established is that the issue of the presidency in Syria is a purely Syrian issue, and no non-Syrians have the right to interfere in it, neither positively or negatively, neither with nor against, and every intervention of this kind is an additional violation of the already-violated Syrian sovereignty, and falls within the framework of the obsolete arrogant colonial mentality.
External interference in this issue, in all its forms, whether those who call for departure (of the head of the regime), or those who think they confront the first by saying “stay”, both of those fall into the same category: just as personalization during the crisis was a tool to prolong it, extremists from both Syrian sides who refuse changing and solving things fully benefited from it. The same goes now, as using this tool still contributes to prolonging the crisis, deepening attrition, and delaying the solution.
The Syrian people alone decide and settle the issue of the presidency and other issues. However, to be able to do that, and for their free will to shine through, the immediate and full implementation of Resolution 2254 is the only way. It is also the only way to quickly end the suffering that exemplifies the greatest violation of the Syrian people’s sovereignty, which is omnipotently manifested through things like mothers’ inability to feed their children, resulting in death from the lack of the minimum level of life’s necessities.
Kassioun Editorial, Issue No. 966, May 18, 2020