Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has discussed the possibility of forming a transitional government as proposed by an international summit in Geneva last month, UN envoy Kofi Annan said on Wednesday.
Annan said that Assad told him last week that he would consider a political transition and proposed someone who could mediate on behalf of the regime as it explores an interim government with the opposition.
Annan would not identify the person Assad suggested by name, but said: “He did offer a name and I indicated that I wanted to know a bit more about that individual. So we are at that stage.”
In a conference last month, Annan brought together world powers and key regional players to agree to strive for a unity government to be formed in Syria according to a democratic process and that it could include members of the present regime as well as opposition.
Annan said Wednesday that he has urged the UN Security Council to unite and send a message to the Syrian government and the opposition that they would face consequences if they did not comply with an immediate ceasefire.
“He called for the security council members to put aside their national interests and to put joint and sustained pressure on both parties with clear consequences for non-compliance,” Britain’s UN ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant said.
Since Assad has reportedly discussed a possible transition and Russia has announced a full stop to any new weapons sales to Syria, it seems up to the opposition and their supporters to agree to comply with the process.
But the US and its allies in Turkey and the Gulf Arab states have shown no sign they will stop arming the rebel militias, and Russia’s deputy UN ambassador Alexander Pankin claims the opposition has declined political dialogue.
Pankin: “What we heard from many factions and many representatives of the opposition is they are not ready for diplomatic or political dialogue. They don’t trust the current government. They would continue fighting, which is very discouraging.”
Much of the geopolitics of the conflict in Syria has been defined by outside powers aiding either side, causing stalemate in trying to exploit the conflict for their own interests. If its true that Assad and Russia are, if incrementally, moving into compliance with Annan’s plan while the opposition, the US and their allies are staunchly maintaing their postures, a resolution will continue to be unachievable.
Look: Bashir Al Assad have said publicly already that if people don't want him he will resign, which bring us to the question what is it that opposition want…? if the want democracy there you have it, let people vote for the opposition, if they are only after Assad then they need to deal with the Syrian people. One more thing, as we have said it before, as divided these “opposition” is that much of support they have among the Syrian people, if they were presenting the majority of the Syrian people, Assad would have not lived the time to see the beginning of the democracy in Syria. Now that Hillary Clinton and her good friends of feudalism Saudis and UAE started this new mess in Middle East, she is looking after new costumer to build military bases. US and England are after China, Russia and rest of the world, we have said that from day one that US and EU are after militarizing the world starting with middle east, long before the Syrian turmoil started. Close the democratic party, there is no democracy coming out that party.
“Annan said that Assad told him…”
Now why would Assad talk to someone who is quoted to have insulted him as: “Annan also said… the violent President Bashar al-Assad’s regime…”
You insult Assad and he still talks to you? No way. Either Assad didn’t talk with Annan, or Anti-war has misquoted Annan for its ulterior motive.
I really like this website, but your bias is too much. It is clear that the peoples of middle east have had their fill of the dictators and want other forms of government. It is also clear that the U.S. and Western nations only support the cause of democracy in countries they are not allied with. Your bias makes it seem like the Assad regime is the willing to reach an agreement and the rebels are being unreasonable, when I think the evidence to date makes clear the opposite is true. You can be both on the side of the rebels and against Western Imperialism.
Jerm,
Some of our readers say we're in the tank for the rebels and not fair to the Assad regime.
Some of our readers say we're in the tank for the Assad regime and not fair to the rebels.
The actuality is that we're skeptical of claims issuing from either side of the fight, doing our best to get at the truth, and opposed to foreign meddling in the situation.
My personal opinion is that Assad will not agree to any resolution which removes him from power (even though he postures publicly as if he would), and that the rebels will not agree to any resolution which doesn't (they are honest about that at least). Neither side is, or is going to suddenly become, "reasonable."
Jerm,
I really like this website too; hence I visit it every day.
Unfortunately, the rest of your comment has no base in reality as other readers here can tell.
TLK’s comment that Assad will not agree to any resolution which removes him from power is true, but why should he agree? Who the hell is going to come up with that resolution other than the US and its European puppets plus Persian Gulf monarchies?
Besides, Assad never postured publicly that he would give up power if the resolution asked him to do so. He said he would go if Syrian people asked him. And polls show that the majority people want him to stay, even if they think he’s no good, but they still prefer him to the replacement by Wahhabi and salafi terrorists. Nice try TLK. I know in your heart you know the truth, but again you have to keep your job.
Charles,
Vocabulary problem: When I say that Assad will not agree to any resolution which removes him, I do not mean a "UN resolution," i.e. a statement voted on by e.g. the UN General Assembly or Security Council. I mean "resolution" in the larger sense, i.e. "means of resolving."
If 90% of the Syrian people said "Assad must go" but he believed his regime could hold on to power anyway, he would try (so would the regimes of Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Erdogan, et. al, even if the individual figureheads might be dispensed with).
That being said, I suspect that a majority of Syrians DO prefer the Ba'athist terror state to a Wahabi Islamist terror state, a western client terror state, etc. If nothing else, it's the devil they know, and they've seen the results of "regime change" next door.
And no, I don't "have to keep my job" (it's not about the money to any significant extent), nor is defending Antiwar.com part of that job (basically I'm here to monitor spam and to slam the door on the Stormfront bubbas' fingers).
"Britain circulated a draft on Wednesday, backed by the United States, France and Germany, that would make compliance with a transition plan drafted by international envoy Kofi Annan enforceable under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter”. Which in reality means use of force invading Syria by US and NATO militarism regimes.
Look: Above is what the US and EU are after for Syria and they have playing this card since day one no matter what the Syrian government has done or going to do. US and England knowing the fact that people of middle east is no longer going to close their eyes and look the other way, knowing that they are losing their grips on their true tyrants, so US – England with their EU allies are after militarizing the entire middle east, dividing the resource, countries among themselves having their colonial back in track. Using these hidden elements in Paris-Londong-Jihadis warlords in Washington is the last political tools that US and EU are able to come up with, they don't have any other way but to show their true face that they are not democrats nor they are about democracy wanting to have any democracy anywhere. These governments representing the vulture capitalism-militarism, they don't have a clue about democracy nor they will ever respect its principals.
The rebels want full Sunni control, with any of the particular rebel commanders as the new dictator. "Democrats (small "d") need not apply." The West wants Assad gone, the alliance with Iran terminated, the Russian's evicted, and the usual shopping list of imperial privileges. Assad knows that the rebels are disunited, disorganized, fractious, and with limited domestic support. In a settlement by political process he has substantial political support as well as substantial control of "the process". He knows, absent direct NATO support, that the rebels have zero hope of military success and can only conduct an insurgent/terrorist campaign of annoyance. So Assad will declare that he is ready to cooperate with the political process. That will prevent NATO gunslingers from finding a justification to take him out.
There will be no repeat of the Libyan "success".
Assad is running Syria and well in control. There is no "Civil War"…this is being blown way out of proportion (and intentionally so I might add). There are no "both sides" within Syria which require anything more than what is already on the table and already agreed to a long time ago–which are elections in 2014–Assad stays as Head of State until then–at which point an "election" will be held for "president"…fair and square…to "prove" the almighty "opposition" has the political will to take him over… I'm not sure what the actual "democratic structure" will look like…and I'm not sure what would be more "fair" or 'democratic'… This is up the the Syrian people. If the "opposition' wants Assad out, perhaps they should start mobilizing for the "elections" peacefully. Make Assad go via the ballot booth…this isn't brain surgery here…
Do you think I'm 'thrilled' with the political situation inside the US??? Welcome to "democracy" and reality…
I don't think it would be wise to send a message to the "Syrian people" that whenever they have an 'issue' with the political situation inside their Nation, they should start laying out IEDs, assist foreign fighters to enter their nation to 'terrorize' the "people of Syria", and whine and cry to other governments to assist with their "freedom fighting"…especially when they are an extremely small minority in Syria…