Jamil: Political process is a weapon of mass destruction towards terrorism

You proposed to have a joint meeting of three opposition platforms: Moscow, Cairo and Riyadh. You were saying about the necessity to create a single, but not unified opposition group. How do you see this delegation?

It has been a long time since we were hoping to have a single delegation. Why? The answer is simple. It’s very difficult to conduct negotiations when there is no single delegation. And as far as I know, it will be very difficult to start the implementation of the SC resolution 2254 without direct negotiations. That’s why the priority of the Moscow group» is to start direct negotiations as soon as possible through  organisation of one opposition delegation. A unique opposition delegation means that it should include all the opposition groups. But, to be frank, it is impossible to create a unified delegation.

And how do you see the difference between one and unified delegation?
A unified delegation also means unification of the programmes, documents, different papers and etc. From my perspective, as well as all the Moscow group’s perspective, the thing that unifies us is our joint programme that is at the end of the day presented in Resolution 2254. It’s enough for this moment and everybody should keep its own programme. Our line is very flexible - it’s the line to facilitate the achievement of agreements between various opposition groups.

What should be the main principles to create a unique opposition group?
In the opposition delegation there shouldn’t be an absolute majority of representatives of one or another opposition group. Taking into account our bitter experience, the monopoly and majority of one or another opposition group creates obstacles during the talks, to their breakdown and freezing.

What should be the basis for the negotiation process? After all, many interpret the content of the SC Resolution 2254 on their own.
I don’t think there are contradictions between SC Resolution 2254 and Geneva communiqué. Resolution 2254 is the continuation of «Geneva 1», and it even can be confirmed by the text of the resolution itself. Statements that the Resolution 2254 disperse with the provisions of «Geneva 1» are wrong and biased. Here I will allow myself to say that the one who asserts it is just not familiar with any of the provisions of the "Geneva-1", or with the provisions of resolution 2254. "Geneva-1" says about the transition, and resolution 2254 says the same thing, as well as defines the stages of transition.

How do you assess the requirement of the Riyadh group about the departure of Assad?
Condition of the departure of president Assad is not presented in any of the fundamental documents - in SC resolution 2254, as well as in the provisions of «Geneva 1». So, to discuss it means to violate the provisions of the "Geneva-1" and resolution 2254.


What is priority for you - political process or fight against terrorism?
In our view, it is possible to find a common denominator between the opinion about the priority of the transition period and the opinion about the priority of combating terrorism. This political process is about to start, and I assure you that it is the best strategic weapon for the fight against terrorism. Political process is a weapon of mass destruction towards terrorism. Military operations are anyway limited in their scale. But if we can change the balance of powers, we will be able to unify the entire Syrian nation and will direct our weapons against terrorists and their supporters. This will create fruitful ground for political talks and the victory of the entire Syrian nation (including opposition and pro-government powers) over terrorism in all its forms and appearances.

Don’t you think that we face now a new formula of the definition of terrorism? Who is the terrorist? There are different factions. For instance, «Djabhat Al-Nusra" changed its name two or three times. Someone thinks its reasonable that someone wants to include it in the political process. These groups are backed by regional powers.

Importance of Astana is that there started the process of separation between the groups that are defined in international resolutions as terrorist groups and the groups that can move away from them and that can be classified as groups ready to move towards political resolution. Parties managed to do something important in Astana, even if it was not too much. It was the beginning of the route in the right direction. Importance of Astana is that it almost opened the path to Geneva, And we can not oppose fight against terrorism and political process, or even define what is the priority. On the contrary, they should develop simultaneously, supporting each other moving forward.