Written by Nasser Kandil,

The UN Secretary of State John Kerry did not know that his last speech about Syria and the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is the last speech that can be said and used in a good sentence about Syria and its president, and what is going to say will be a repetition of it where there is nothing left to say after. Kerry said that Al-Assad has to leave but not necessarily now,  in an American arrogant formulation of the equation of Germany and Britain, which violated the Syrian sovereignty too, but relatively it is dilute in its arrogance, it states that they do not mind a role of Al-Assad in a transitional phase.

Since the meeting of the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and America Sergei Lavrov and John Keryy and the issuance of the first Geneva statement which the Syrians and the non Syrians have considered it despite the reservations a valid basic for the political solution, and that the political track for the crisis and the war against Syria is depended on the utterance of Kerry and his European counterparts of this useful sentence that the transitional phase on which Geneva Statement has stipulated  and which was ambiguous and had two contradictory interpretations by the two founders of the statement, it has become possible to have a unified interpretation in order to launch the political track from this interpretation.

Geneva Statement has stipulated on the call for a Syrian-Syrian dialogue, a constitutional reform, the depending on the dialogue to solve the conflicts and to stop the violence, the standing against terrorism, and the preparation for elections that produce constitutional institutions that reflect the desire of the Syrians. To ensure the implementation of these items which the war against terrorism constitutes one of its vocabularies a transitional governing crops has to be formed that includes the current government and the opposition and through which all the executive powers are formulated. despite that the semi-consensus has been achieved internationally and regionally, but the ambiguity in determining the kind of the governmental transitional body was enough to cover the division of the advocates of Geneva Statement, thus the continuation of the deep disagreement between two big camps which are divided originally about the attitude towards Syria, despite the repetition of all their supporting to Geneva statement.

The source of ambiguity in Geneva statement is the reason of this division or in showing this division as an understanding that is in need of a simple item to be completed, this simple item as it was basically a reason of the war against Syria, and the pivot of the division around it, where the understanding and the meeting on the rhetoric nice words is nonsense without issuing a useful sentence; the remaining of Al-Assad or his departure, this is through establishing this transitional governmental body under his presidency, thus the formation of a government of national unity that embodies this  transitional governmental body under the Syrian sovereignty and the Syrian constitution, or the  formation of transitional governing corps  that restores the governing council which is set up by Paul Bremer the American Governor of Iraq through a resolution issued according to the Chapter VII of the United Nations that terminates the Syrian sovereignty and suspends the work under the Syrian Constitution and assigns this body.

The issue on which the conflict about Syria is revolving is summarized by the word “Al-Assad” where all the meanings of constitution and the sovereignty are summarized, through him the constants of Syria the independence, Arabism, the national unity ,and the resistance are abbreviated, so it was enough for the enemies of Syria to say yes for everything that is presented to them and just to say no for Al-Assad, on the contrary  it was enough for the supporters of Syria to say yes for everything that is presented to them but culminating it with a big yes for Al-Assad. The enemies of Syria become supporters to Geneva Statement according to an interpretation that revolves about the impossibility of its application without the departure of Al-Assad, so it would be easier then to achieve everything they want, but the constitution is terminated, the sovereignty is violated, the independence of Syria is fallen in addition to its unity, Arabism and its resisting choice, while the supporters of Syria have become advocates of Geneva statement according to an interpretation that revolves about the impossibility of its application without Al-Assad, so the sovereignty of Syria will be protected implicitly, its constitution is maintained, its unity and Arabism are conserved, and its resisting choice is preserved.

Since the issuance of Geneva Statement all the wars were revolving to resolve this point, is it possible to start with a political track with Al-Assad or without him?, the two teams know that the regret  and the mutual bet on running out the fuels and the time are summarized through the bet of the alliance of war against Syria compared with the running out of the ability of Syria’s allies to withstand and to accept a solution that starts without Al-Assad, this is what we call the bet on running out the fuels, while the bet of the supports of Syria and its allies on the achieving of the Americans and the Europeans the moment where they do not have enough time and they are obliged to say that they do not mind the transitional phase where Al-Assad is a part of it, we call this, the bet on the running out the time, the two teams know that beyond every situation there is a different and sufficient track to ensure that the last useful sentence which was uttered by the two teams is this sentence. The enemies of Syria and the alliance of war against it know that the political solution which includes the remaining of Al-Assad or not his departure immediately as Kerry has said, means that the rule will continue though the institutions of the sovereignty and the constitution in Syria, and will end surely through parliamentary and presidential elections which will decide who will remain and who will depart of the institutions of the governance, it is an illusion if they have a glimmer of hope to overthrow Al-Assad in the elections and according to the ballot boxes, then they would narrow the distances and be contented by accepting the judgment of these ballot boxes. On the contrary the supporters of Syria and its allies know that when they accept a solution that starts without Al-Assad then they accept to put the political and the constitutional future of Syria under the leadership that will take it towards the Iraqi path in order to rearrange the authority on a sectarian and doctrinal bases that pave the way for division and end the era of sovereignty, independence, and resistance.

Kerry knows that the political track will launch in Geneva III and will have the chances of success after the anticipated useful sentence by him and his allies, Therefore all the items will have different meanings of the previous ones if the supporters of Syria have uttered the alternative sentence which is based on a political track without Al-Assad. Kerry knows as well that the political track after his faltered speech will restrict the UN Envoy Steffan De Mistura with a unified Russian American interpretation of the Statement of Geneva which depends on the understanding on a government of national unity under the Syrian Constitution and under the slogan and the powers of the President Al-Assad, and that all must accept to leave the fate of presidency to the ballot boxes, which is known by Kerry that the results of any transparent honest elections and under the most severe form of supervision which ensures the transparency and the fairness of the competition will bring Al-Assad once again to presidency. So just to say that the departure of Al-Assad is not required now means implicitly the acceptance of a partnership in the solution even temporally, in other words, a practical acceptance under his leadership for the transitional phase according to the provisions of the Syrian Constitution, and the acceptance successively of a track in which neither America nor any other country has the opportunities of controlling over it, and which surely will lead Al-Assad to presidency, otherwise Washington would accept this track and tried to alienate Al-Assad through it. Now the most important is from whom Kerry can take the right of veto to pave the way for what will be decided later, so the speech of Kerry will be invaluable. Therefore the speech of Kerry about “ Now” will  pave the way for the political track which will mean practically the entry of Syria in the era of settlements which all know that they will not stop the war, but these settlements will oblige the involved countries in the war to stop their support of the terrorism, and to stop the hostile procedures against Syria in addition to the lifting the sanctions, this will make the cost of the war against the terrorism is less and the needed time for victory is shorter. These are the conditions of the end of the transitional phase and the going to the ballot boxes which will crown Al-Assad as a leader of Syria, and a democratic president legitimately and constitutionally as Kerry who has said the last useful sentence about Syria” Not necessarily now” knows.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

2015-09-22 | عدد القراءات 2216