Putin to Kerry: The Decision Lies with Assad

Jean Aziz

It is upon those who are waiting for the arrival of a "Vienna-3" meeting in New York, with two new leaders from both Syria and Lebanon, to wait for a few things which are related to many things. This is what is confirmed by the observer who follows the real stances of the influential sides in the current, complicated political process over there.

A certain diplomat from the Levant concerned with the file confirms that an agreement between Moscow and Washington remains over issues in general, in addition to the principles and broad parameters: that we head to an agreement within the context of "the international group for the support of Syria", or the Vienna process in the form of a resolution launched from the Vienna declaration on 30 June 2012, as well as the Vienna documents from 30 October and 14 November 2015. In addition, that this formula is translated via the Security Council through a binding resolution which represents a framework for a reasonable implementation mechanism. Apart from that, that Russia made very clear two issues, and it will continue to make them clear, and over which it will not accept any compromise:

The first is the two lists that were agreed upon in Vienna. The moderate opposition list, and the terrorist organizations list. The second was bound to the Jordanian capital so that it puts it together in cooperation with all those concerned with the issue in Syria and abroad. As for the first list, it has not been bound to any capital as some try to suggest or act in accordance with, rather, it was clear in the latest Vienna conference that the only one in charge of putting together the moderate opposition list is the Special UN Envoy Steven De Mistura. It is upon him to achieve this by relying on the contributions of several states, such that it brings about a logical synthesis between the results of the conferences of the Syrian opposition [groups] that were held in Riyadh recently, and those that were witnessed by Moscow, Cairo, Damascus itself, and even those held in Hasakah.

On this level, the same diplomat affirms that it is not allowed at all for there to be [political] games with the principles of these two lists, such that exchanges are made between them. No terrorist should be moved from the Amman list to the list of De Mistura under the banner of being ‘moderate' and vice versa. For this reason, the cross-examination and exchange of information, and the double checking - repeatedly - of the contributions of all those conferences, is the only possible way to make sure that the dress of the terrorists is not changed.

The same diplomat also reveals that Moscow was decisive on this issue in Vienna, to the extent that Riyadh's representative tried all types of extortion tactics in order to jump over Moscow's red line in this regard, without any success. This moved Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to remark: "Since a certain period of time a certain member of an organization was described by some as a moderate, while he ate the heart of another person. For this reason I say that we say that of course there is a moderate opposition, yet we definitely do not believe that one who eats the flesh of another human is moderate!". This led to this issue being put to rest. Aside from this, some are also trying anew to play on this red line, which will complicate the task of all in New York and what follows.

The second issue has become well-known under the title of President Assad. The same diplomat says that what are unfortunate are the attempts to be smart on this issue. The position of the Russians towards this issue, as it is towards the previous issue, is decisive and final. However, despite this fact, there are continuously attempts to play around it, by playing with definitions and terms. For example, in the documents of the Vienna conference the term "governance" was mentioned based on the Western context of the term, in reference to the new governmental makeup which is expected to come about from the political resolution agreement to the Syrian crisis.

The understanding of Moscow is that this "governance" will be a type of coalition and one that unites, on the basis of a national unity government born out of the required dialogue between the ruling [power] and its opposition. As for the understanding of Damascus' allies, this new framework will be a "governmental formation", in which the enemies of Damascus will attempt to make it "complete rule formation", that is, that the president is no longer needed as a position. This is how the equation has become: Moscow and its allies announce publicly that the solution involved Assad as the president leading, and a national unity government that governs, whereas the others secretly attempt to reach a government without a president.

The same diplomat reveals the US Secretary of State put forward this issue during his latest visit to Saint Petersburg, during which he met his Russian counterpart Lavrov and thereafter President Putin, with the knowledge that this point in particular is what prompted his second visit, in which he listened attentively to Putin that Moscow is with the remaining of Assad as President until the holding of new presidential elections. In addition, that Assad is the one that will decide at that time whether he will run for these elections or not. This moved Kerry to admit to Putin that this stance of his may anger the Saudis, Qataris, and Turks, and therefore, complicate his reception at the New York conference. However, Putin did not move from his stance one bit. This prompted the American official to withdraw, sufficing himself with the opportunity to hold the conference and launch the Syrian dialogue track, while leaving the remaining issues for the next phase.

This is how the Syrian scene has become clear: a political path that carries enough grey areas to keep it alive, in addition to a parallel military path which is used to narrow these areas. The negotiation table is necessary while the conflict on the ground continues. The two components are complimentary based on a firm principle: whoever wins on the ground, wins on the table.

Source: al-Akhbar Newspaper, Translated and Edited by website team