The results of the Geneva talks on Syria depend on whom you ask.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists that the principle of “mutual consent” on which a “transitional government” in Syria would be based, means President Assad has to go. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on the contrary, insists the formation of a “transitional government” will be made on inclusive basis.
Before discussing what it means, let’s stop for a second to grasp the sheer fact: five foreign powers gathered to decide the fate of a country, in the absence of its leader and its people, who never asked them to do anything of the kind, let alone gave any mandate. This is an outrageous breach of international law. And what is even more outrageous is that nobody is concerned or even talking about it.
Now, the wording of the final communiqué, at Russian insistence, does not explicitly call for Assad's ousting but instead says the new government "shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent." Russia and China understand this formula to mean, according to the countries’ officials, that President Assad is part of the process.
But listen how the author of the new plan, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan interprets it: "The government will have to re-form by discussion, negotiation and by mutual consent, and I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought so hard for their independence, … will select people with blood on their hands to lead them." French Foreign Minister Fabius, in a surprising continuation of Sarkozy’s allegiance to Washington, spells it out even clearer: "Even if they [Russia and China] say the opposite, the fact is that text … means it won't be Bashar al-Assad. The opposition will never agree to him, so it signals implicitly that Assad must go and that he is finished," Fabius told television station TF1.
It sounds as though Washington found the final solution for Bashar Al-Assad. “Transitional government” based on “mutual consent” will be to Syria what the “no-fly zone” was to Libya. While a normal person understood the term “no-fly zone” as an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly, Washington defined the term to mean more than 30,000 sorties of NATO fighter-bombers and reconnaissance flights.
In Syria’s case, by the Geneva agreement Washington has launched the final phase of President Assad’s removal. And again as with Libya, “regime” change will be carried out with the full agreement of UN Security Council’s permanent members!
The most appalling element here is that Russia seems to have fallen again into the Washington’s trap. Notwithstanding all the right declarations and efforts, at the end of the day Russia nevertheless signed a tacit agreement to abandon Syria, similar to the abstention vote on “no-fly zone” for Libya that allowed Washington to launch strikes.
A few words need to be said about Kofi Annan’s role in the process, which uncovered one more tactical approach in the “regime” change business of America. Compared to the “bad cop” behavior of the US administration, the silken-voiced elegantly-attired originally Kenyan diplomat served as a perfect peace-loving “good cop” figure.
In February 2012, just as the Syrian government was about to neutralize the armed insurrection within its country by terrorists illegally armed and trained by America and its allies, Annan comes up with a “6-point peace plan” that required government troops to “immediately” return to their barracks while the terrorists had to only “commit to stop the fighting.” In fact, Annan’s plan gave time to arm and train insurgents, to build up their terrorist capabilities, while gearing up western public support to war.
In preparation for Geneva talks, Kofi Annan pulls out one more “peace plan” that promotes the next stage of subverting President Al-Assad: a “government of national unity” must be created, which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups” with the exception of “those whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation”. Thus, in the Annan/US vision, the murderers who perpetrated the Houla massacre are entitled to be part of the government, but the only democratically elected leader of the country is not.
As if that were not enough, Annan’s “peace plan” № 2 requires prompt “free and fair multiparty elections” – which as “color revolution” methodology proved is the most practical environment to overthrow a government and solidify “opposition”’s gains.
US immediate goal in destabilizing Syria is to move forward the front against Iran. In this direction, operations in Syria are proceeding in tandem with gearing-up of Azerbaijan on Iran’s northern border.
For Russia, once again falling into Washington’s trap will have dire consequences. On the international arena, Moscow loses precious credibility with its strategic allies, with Iran in particular. Geopolitically, Syria’s fall will speed up American’s relentless push across the Middle East into the Caucasus and Central Asia, consolidating its infrastructure on Russia’s southern military front and putting a definitive end to the prospects of the Eurasian Union.
These losses will hardly, if ever, be recoverable.
Veronika Krasheninnikova, Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow, for RT
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.