Christoph Horstel: "Western governments have become an obstacle for peace settlement of Syrian crisis"

Author: Transcript and translation by Orkhan Sattarov, head of the European Bureau of VK

Middle East expert Christoph Horstel explains the mission of Lakhdar Brahimi in Syria to German Radio

- The new UN envoy to Syria, Arab diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi has started work. In many interviews, he admitted that it is quite a difficult mission, but it is doomed to failure. How would you comment on his statements?

- I think the experience of Kofi Annan, who, as he put it, raised the white flag because of a lack of international support, showed to Lakhdar Bahrami that, above all, it is necessary to lower the expectations related to the position of special envoy. It was also absolutely clear to him that without cooperation with group of countries led by the U.S., which has quite clearly made removing President Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria its goal, the situation can hardly be any way moved forward. Yes, this is very complicated.

- Mr. Horstel, what are, in your opinion, the main obstacles for Brahimi’s mission?

- The first obstacle was already evident at the beginning of the riots in Syria. As early as the first few days it became clear to experienced observers that this process is imposed and controlled from the outside. But we should also openly admit that objectively existing major internal problems of the government fundamentally overwhelming its own population were used. In Syria, of course, there was no freedom. That was its weakness, which, of course, was used by, shall we say, "NATO mafia" which made political capital out of this. It has always happened in human history.

Another obstacle is that later "NATO mafia", by means of its excellence in the world propaganda war, managed to ensure that the voice of the official Damascus could hardly be heard in other countries and, among others, here in Germany. The German public is informed through standard channels - daily political TV shows, major regional and national newspapers. Moreover, people listen only to the western propaganda. In fact, there is no counterweight to this propaganda. The Syrian authorities should work with the public promoting their position, especially in NATO countries. It would be perfectly normal professional efforts. But Damascus does not do this, and therefore, there is no political opposition to this criminal policy of NATO.

This is, in my opinion, the most important obstacle. One side - Syria - is honest and even tries to carry out democratic reforms during the war, when the Syrian government is attacked, and the cities are being destroyed. Because of this, there are huge problems, and at the moment I do not see the mechanism which could break this rotten situation which affects millions of people.

- Mr. Horstel, you have already said that there is the process of political reforms in Syria. Could this be the first element required for the start of political negotiations?

- It would be a positive and absolutely possible, and I also believe that the current young president, Bashar al-Assad, since he took office, honestly tried to implement reforms, but he could not resist his own political establishment. I've always said that Bashar al-Assad received the post, but not the power. But now the situation is so serious that many Syrian officials, who previously blocked the reform process, saw that they could not go this way. This means that the Syrian government now, more than ever, is open to reforms. This would be a golden opportunity, but alas, I have to say that the US-led group of states is not interested in it, like radical Sunni Islamists opposing Assad. In other words, there is no objective negotiating perspective for Assad. If one side, stronger militarily and having all sorts of instruments to conduct its own propaganda, is opposed to any constructive policy, even if all the Syrian government officials now abruptly turn into saints, anyway, in the end nothing will happen. These people (the West - VK) do not want a reasonable political solution. Since due to ongoing propaganda the public in the West does not understand that Western governments are the main obstacle to the peaceful settlement of the crisis in Syria, nothing can change in the near future.

- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said recently at the meeting with Hillary Clinton in Vladivostok that the goals of Russia and the U.S. are identical. We know that the Russian stand for the political solution to the conflict. Does this mean that the U.S. supports its political settlement?

- Yes, it is, of course, an important question. We have heard so many votes from the U.S., claiming that the U.S. does not want a military solution to the conflict. It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton said after meeting with Lavrov that she does not rule out unilateral actions by the U.S. supporting the Syrian rebels in order to remove Assad from power as soon as possible. Lavrov hinted at the apparent U.S. desire not to conflict with its own forces (he meant bombing, let alone entering the Army.) But the subsequent statement by Clinton has demonstrated that the United States admit steps and measures without a UN mandate in order to topple the Assad regime. This means that, in principle, in fact Lavrov made correct explanations, and Clinton made the statement clear from the political point of view. And this does not bring anything positive to the people of Syria, because the group of states united against it is not interested in improving the situation of people living there.

- Do you agree with Brahimi that, despite the difficulties, we should not despair?

- We should not despair until the whole country is destroyed. Of course, we cannot give up, otherwise the counterbalance to destructive forces will disappear, but, frankly, in the current situation of the current Syrian government, I see no chance of good political prospects.