Europeans Start Changing Their Policy towards Al-Assad

Sami Kleib - al-Akhbar newspaper

After the Americans have given up on the idea of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and after enhancing the security coordination with the Syrian army against "ISIS", it seems that the Europeans have ventured, since some time, into a series of meetings to change their policy in Syria. According to special information obtained by al-Akhbar, senior European officials said, during the last meeting of the European Union's Prime Ministers, that their policy was "erroneous."

It must then be changed! And let the initiative of peace envoy Staffan de Mistura be the facet. Will we soon witness positive signs towards the Syrian regime and will the cold shoulder still be turned to the opposition abroad?

Geneva - A European official gave al-Akhbar a lowdown on the important meeting which took place on December 11, between de Mistura and the EU's Foreign Ministers. He confirmed that there was a start to modify the position from Syria. He clarified that the meeting was held behind closed doors, just like all the meetings the Europeans intend to hold in order to discuss a sensitive matter. The international peace envoy started to explain the Syrian situation and the regional and international frame of his plan, expected to be executed within three months; otherwise, it will not be applicable.

What de Mistura said and the related European positions in a nutshell:

- The plan of freezing fights in Aleppo is the only available one and there is no other hope than it. Therefore, the European Union must have some backer. This plan is the only one capable of freezing the fights, providing people's needs, and guaranteeing the return of the displaced who are inflicting heavy loads upon the countries next door. It also allows reconstruction.

- President al-Assad, who seems ready to ensure the success of the international plan in Aleppo, was the one who talked his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, into this plan. He was also among those who considerably contributed to convincing his Iranian allies of it. This was very necessary, since Moscow was quite tentative believing that any US-NATO endeavor cannot be trusted currently and that the plan can subsequently descend into undesired consequences by Russia and its allies.

- Even though the Americans voiced reservations over the plan and cast doubts, they seem to be more flexible now, whereby they linked their acceptance to that of some of their regional allies. They certainly mean the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Theoretically, the Europeans second de Mistura. They see that ever since the resignation of Lakhdar Brahimi, the political efforts exerted between the regime and the opposition must be preserved, first so that the regime does not solely opt for the military solution; second, to give the tattering opposition the impression that the West still backs it; and third, because there is no other way to think of other than de Mistura due to the US-Russian severe relations in light of the Ukrainian events.

This exacerbation drives the Europeans to believe that Moscow had become more unswerving in backing al-Assad. Therefore, there is no glimpse of hope by pressuring the Syrian regime, except through its Iranian ally. This is also an important development in Brussels.

De Mistura's plan: fierce race between definite operation and security measures agreed by the regime

It is worth reminding here that Brahimi had once said to the Europeans what he had reiterated in more than occasions, "My resignation will relieve two people: al-Assad and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal,' since his personal relation with the two men was more than bad. He often spoke of a "personal grudge by Prince Saud against al-Assad that hindered the solution." It is also known that al-Assad, since his first meeting with Brahimi, had doubted the man's intentions, especially when the international envoy broached stepping down. He also wanted to meet with Vice President Farouq al-Sharaa before al-Assad prevented him, considering that such a thing was inadmissible on an official visit. Brahimi contacted Sharaa by phone instead. Soon after, Sharaa was excluded from power.

To the Europeans, Turkey remains a real problem. Some officials speak of an inability to expect Ankara's next adventure. Others see that Turkey is still almost the only one that is facilitating the passage of foreign fighters into Syria and that has not yet decided upon combating ISIS. Here, the Europeans think of two options: whether to pressure, nay warn, Turkey, or to try to contain it and push it to commit more to the international decision to fight ISIS. Both ways, the Turkish position is still concerning for Europe.

Iran has become a key state in the two Syrian an Iraqi crises. This is a matter of fact regardless of all reservations. There is no problem in getting engaged with it in serious talks on Syria, even before the conclusion of the nuclear deal. This is at first useful to obtain political concessions from the Syrian regime, but it also enhances the presence of European companies on the Iranian territories in the background of the European mindset. This may have become a stringent need for the Europeans, despite the French reservations which can be explained by the relation between Paris and Riyadh, and France's keenness on keeping "Israel's" rage off.

A serious solution or provisional solutions in Syria cannot be mulled without Saudi Arabia which has wide relations with a number of the anti-Assad conflict's parties. It is important to reassure Riyadh that Europe's efforts do not aim to re-float the regime. De Mistura explained that the climate in KSA was implicitly welcomed his initiative, while the Spanish Foreign Minister was clearer when he said that Riyadh accepted the plan and that it was in France's favor to tone down its momentum in criticizing the plan because it would seem more extremist than the Saudis, and this is understandable. Even more, the Spanish Minister proposed the holding of an international conference on Syria in Spain.

Russia remains the key hindrance before any solution that does not satisfy it or the regime. And since the US-European ties are currently strained with Russia due to Ukraine, it is important to discuss exits to separate talks on Syria from its present position from Ukraine. Some European officials intend to re-bolster dialogue with Moscow because "it is inadmissible to return to the logic of the cold war." Perhaps, there will be a looming visit to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. Besides, Moscow is active and serious when it comes to the political solution. And perhaps keeping the Europeans distant means excluding them by the Americans and the Russians.

Europeans with and against al-Assad

After de Mistura discussed these items with the European Ministers and talked about his last contacts, contradicting yet significant positions emerged among the Europeans about the future of the relation with al-Assad:

1 - Everybody agrees on de Mistura's plan, but...
They want to back the plan as it is the only one available pending Moscow's action in terms of gathering the opposition and the delegation of the Syrian state on the Russian soil. But France, with strong commercial relations with KSA, and Britain that is more connected to Iran than other Europeans, have highlighted the necessity that the plan should not be supportive for the Syrian army against the moderate opposition in Aleppo; that is to say, it shouldn't look like siding with the army against ISIS, because there are moderate oppositionists in Aleppo and its vicinity who must be considered.

The French Minister was the firmer, even though voices within the current French administration are pointing out to the obligation of adopting a new method towards Syria, especially after that terrorism has reached the French soil.

We do not want in Aleppo what happened in Homs previously," Laurent Fabius said.
A European official with connections with the Syrian opposition relates that the expulsion of gunmen from Homs back then was more of a masquerade. Imagine for instance that Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun came to the buses transferring gunmen, and joked around with them. As a result, the picture relayed by the media and the reality on the ground were in the favor of the regime.
The French Minister seemed very stern when he maintained that the regime must not benefit from the plan.
Fabius made these remarks while the EU received information speaking of a likely joint wide military operation to be staged by the Iraqi and Syrian armies in Deir-Ezzor.

2 - Europe relations with al-Assad possible, but...

The talks carried out by the Foreign Ministers of the European Union make it clear that there is confusion about how to deal with Syria. For instance, a European official in Geneva said that a number of his European counterparts had indeed started talking about the failure of the policy adopted till now and about the uncalculated mistake in terms of al-Assad stepping down early.
Some Europeans see that trusting the Americans was since the beginning a mistake since Washington prioritizes its interests and often embarrasses the Europeans. Others reckon that the underestimation of the capacities of the Syrian army and its allies was the biggest catastrophe.

Building on this, the EU officials are mulling the means to modify the three-year-old political ceiling in Syria. Shutting down the mantra calling al-Assad to step down was evidence of the said modification. Instead, the Europeans opted for more realistic expressions such as al-Assad "is not a conclusive solution to the crisis" or "al-Assad will not stay in the end of the political solution," or "it is normal that the political solution eventually leads to transferring the powers from the president according to Geneva I." Moreover, replacing the expression "venturing into a transitional process now" with a call to start the process is just an additional indicator.

It seems that Mrs. Mogherini has relatively managed to pass a viewpoint according to which the EU apparently agree on the final result but noting that the political realism and the headway of the situation impose the modification of path and the use of new expressions. In other words, even if everybody in Europe wants al-Assad to step down, realism entails now that this is impossible and that encouraging the political solution might lead to the sought goal later on; this matter is no more a European priority.

Security Council in Aleppo?

In light of these important talks tilting towards modifying the European position from the Syrian regime, the key question in the Union is about the means to make the Aleppo plan succeed without making of al-Assad look as a victorious especially that the Syrian army has advanced considerably in the said region recently.

The prevailing tendency is to find a monitoring mechanism by the UN Security Council. The Europeans realize that this is impossible considering the double veto by China and Russia. Therefore, unlike the positions of France and Britain, the EU has become more convinced of reaching a diplomatic formula that says that the monitoring mechanism is related to the Security Council.

All this will be issued soon in what is now called the strategy of the European Union on Syria, Iraq and fighting ISIS.
As to the Syrian opposition, particularly the Coalition, it seems that it has drawn the despair of the Europeans after the Americans. They too, have become more tending towards widening the scope of the opposition to include those who weren't welcome before.

For instance, when the Head of the Coalition Hadi al-Bahra visited the EU in Brussels days ago, representatives of the Coalition had contacted the Europeans to tell them that al-Bahra no more represented them. A European official jokingly said: "whenever we started a discussion with an official from the Coalition, we discovered that the Coalition had conducted new elections and changed the responsible. So we went back to zero. And whenever we met with an official among them, he asked us the same question: how would you prevent the regime from benefitting from the plan? While we have noticed that some sides from the Coalition have already accepted dialogue with the regime even though they still wanted al-Assad to step down, like Moaz al-Khatib and his camp; the problem of the Coalition is that it does not realize the meaning of the political realism and it keeps get divided."

In light of the aforementioned, did the European Union start to change its position towards al-Assad? Perhaps the entire Union wants al-Assad to leave power. But realism entails a change of conduct and methodology as well as casting aside the president's departure as a top priority. This will be crystallized in more than a stage, following many terrorist attacks in the European soil, especially that there is no more means but to cooperate with the Syrian army and security forces and Iran in order to fight terrorism.

As to de Mistura's plan in Aleppo, it is currently in a feverous race between the military conclusive operation and security arrangements that aren't feasible had it not been for the regime's green light, and perhaps its interests.

Once again, history says it, "International interests are more important than people's miseries and principles."