- Editorials
- Posted
Kassioun Editorial 1129: About 2254 Once Again, but Not the Last Time!
Over the last two weeks, after publishing Kassioun’s editorial 1127, dated June 19 and titled “Restoring and Strengthening National Sovereignty: 2254”, in response to which several articles and opinions were published; some explicitly stated they were responding to the editorial and others did not.
Attacking UNSC Resolution 2254 from various circles within the regime and the opposition alike, is not new. What is new is the relative increase in the intensity and volume of this attack, and this attack starting to transition from unofficial to semi-official levels. This indicates that the extremists are gradually trying to prepare for more open positions in working against a political solution, based primarily on their narrow interests, and as usual, under the guise of “working against external aggression”.
The attackers of the resolution rely on one idea that they repeat in different ways, which is saying that UNSC Resolution 2254 is a “Western product”, a “product hostile to Syria and Syrians”, and that “countries allied to the Syrian people had accepted it under compulsion at an earlier phase, based on the past balance, and that the time has come to bypass it”. In the course of their attack on 2254, it slips from their mouths and pens the truth about their position when they get to the point of directly attacking the idea of a political solution as a whole, and not just Resolution 2254. They are actually correct about one thing, which is that the political solution and Resolution 2254 have become two sides of the same coin, and two expressions of the same thing.
It is necessary to briefly recall some facts mentioned in the aforementioned Kassioun editorial, with some ideas added thereto:
First: Trying to deal with Security Council resolutions as “supranational resolutions” and therefore “necessarily against national interest” is a miserable attempt to escape from the requirements that must be achieved for national change to take place. For example, should Resolutions 242 and 338 be rejected because they are “supranational” resolutions?!
Second: Because conflicts in the world are no longer local conflicts since the beginning of the 20th century, the resolutions of international institutions, and their behavior in general, have become part of the local and regional struggle to achieve and reinforce independence. One must recall the first veto in the UN Security Council, which was a Soviet veto and was in defense of Syria’s independence from the French occupation without allowing France to take any concessions in exchange for the evacuation of its forces, which was what happened.
Third: At the time, there were some among the Syrian elites who would have accepted making concessions giving the French advantages in exchange for evacuation. So, would we describe the Soviet positions at the time as being “more patriotic” than that of some Syrian elites? The issue is of course not so. The essence of the matter is that the economic interests of the plundering classes throughout the last century and until now, have been tied to some degree with the West. Today, we are essentially before the same position. The West’s real and practical position from 2254 is the same as the position of these elites, that is, refusing to implement it while “maneuvering” by recognizing it with only what they say or by not openly rejecting it.
Fourth: In addition to reaffirming Syria’s unity and sovereignty, as well as combatting terrorism, the essence of Resolution 2254 is the Syrian people’s right to self-determination, through a political solution and through dialogue among Syrians. Rejecting this resolution, whatever the pretexts used for that, means one thing, which is holding on narrow interests at the expense of the interests of the overwhelming majority of Syrians.
Fifth: What determines the nature of the political system in any country is the distribution of wealth in it. In Syria, pre-2011, 70% of the wealth was going to 20% of the population. Today, the numbers are even more unfair, where more than 85% of the wealth goes to less than 10% of the population. Therefore, the real decision in Syria is in the hands of those 10% and in their interest, and against the interest of 90% of Syrians. Without radical change to this distribution, there will be no stability in Syria; moreover, Syria’s existence and unity are threatened. Working against a political solution and 2254 under any pretext, in reality is part of the plundering elites’ refusal to redistribute wealth and also goes against the national interest of Syria and the interest of Syrians.
Sixth: How wealth is distributed internally is in the end linked with the nature of the political system and its international positioning. A political solution in Syria through 2254 is one of the necessary tools to reposition Syria in the global map, including economically, against the interests of the West and Zionism. This should not be only through rhetoric, but in practice by financially breaking away from the West, i.e., from the dollar and the euro, and joining the new financial pole – BRICS – something the great corruption forces are actively and clearly obstructing, and will continue to do so as long as they can.
