By Vestnik Kavkaza
Syria intends to fulfill all demands of the international society on chemical disarmament of the country. However, militants can try to prevent the fulfillment of the Russian-American plan. The government of Syria takes responsibility for providing security of the work of international experts on the whole territory which is under control of the Syrian army. However, in territories which are occupied by Al Qaeda and other terrorists the government has no contacts with the groups.
Meanwhile, yesterday Russia and the U.S.A. asked the Syrian opposition “to speak in one voice.” As the result of the talks with Secretary of State John Kerry, the foreign minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov expressed dissatisfaction that earlier the chairman of the National Coalition stated on readiness to take part in Geneva-2, but the next day he rejected this opportunity.
At the same time, Russian experts express positive views on Geneva-2 and the whole Syrian settlement.
“The process which has been launched by joint efforts of Russia and America has two sides,” Andrey Baklanov, Advisor to the Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, thinks. “The problem of chemical weapons was artificially created in the Syrian situation. For some time it replaced all other problems, including much more important ones which concern the socio-economic and political crisis in Syria. Today we speak about crucial problems for Syria only in the context of Geneva-2 and mainly discuss chemical weapons. This is one side. It makes it clear that we shouldn’t feel euphoria that now everything has changed. It has changed only at this level.
The second side is more positive. For the first time Russia and the U.S. turned from confrontation to joint efforts, even though the efforts are very limited. We believe that our goal is to use first positive signs in development of our dialogue with the U.S. in the Syrian problem to build a certain mechanism of cooperation and spread in on the next two levels. The first level is the all-Syrian settlement, and it can be done in case of success of the Geneva meeting in November.”
Baklanov urges the Russian government to support the Syrian regime: “Despite all the ifs and drawbacks which we see in Assad’s regime and himself, I think we should extend our support to him, including military support, and don’t be shy of it. We should make conclusions from the developments not only in Syria, but also in other countries. In Libya the situation has reached a crucial line, we have to withdraw from there, I hope only for some time. But the developments started just like in Syria. I think we whould more actively provide support to the Syrian regime; despite our traditionally skeptical attitude to it, we should help it in the struggle against crazy bands of soldiers of fortune.”
The second level is the Middle East peace process in general. “If Geneva brings positive results in the Syrian direction, we can go further. If our contacts with the Americans are successful, we will need to return the mechanism of co-sponsorship in the Syrian and the Middle East directions. 11 years passed since the mechanism had been established. At first there was some progress, a road map, even though some moments were extremely naïve. Since that time, none of initiatives by the quarter of mediators was successful, unlike the period of co-sponsorship. I don’t think the quartet should be eliminated, but possible co-sponsorship should be in focus. The Russian-American duet could complement the quartet, which would be involved into the Middle East settlement,” Baklanov thinks.
The situation in the whole Middle East also concerns the head of the scientific center “The Middle East-the Caucasus” under the International Institute of Newest States, Stanislav Tarasov: “Let’s look at the map of the Great East. Afghanistan is destroyed. The problem of Afghanistan will be difficult to solve. Iraq is destroyed. Libya is destroyed. Egypt is almost destroyed. It is not clear what will happen in North Africa. It is not clear how processes in Syria will develop. And it is absolutely not clear how the geopolitical situation in Turkey will be formed. If Turkey shifts to a federative structure, we will see a birth of absolutely different Turkey. And we should admit that it is a process of fragmentation as well.”
In the current world politics Tarasov found “an absolutely mysterious and undescribed phenomenon”: “Suddenly the new president of Iran Rouhani who hasn’t made any practical step toward concessions to the Western positions finds the support in the West, opens lines, releases deposits, provides telephone talks and so on; he becomes a liberal hero. Why? The point is that these process, considering that Iran is a multiethnic country (I don’t mean confessions or ideology), and the ethnic side of the problem leads to fragmentation of Iran. The same fragmentation that Iraq has faced, that Syria is facing and other Middle East countries. So, the agenda of Geneva-2 is being formed interestingly and originally, it has an intrigue.”
Tarasov notes: “Geneva-2 is suggested to be turned into a permanent institute. It concerns not only settlement of the Syrian chemical weapons problem or the Syrian status or settlement of relations with the opposition and official Damascus. If Geneva-2 gets a permanent status on the Middle East settlement, certain sub-commissions can be founded, considering upcoming local conflicts and local confrontations in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan.”
