Russian and Chinese officials insist Syrians alone must decide. Beirut: As the Syrian killing fields swelled, representatives of the major powers met in Geneva on Saturday to agree on a transition plan that would presumably include Baath Party members, though both official Syrian media outlets as well as opposition leaders rejected blatant foreign interferences in the ongoing civil war.
Standing by their previously announced positions, Russian and Chinese officials insisted that Syrians must decide alone how this or any transition occurs, rather than submit to the whim of the international community.
Once again, both countries displayed vociferous dislikes of what they claimed were western conditions to introduce regime change in Damascus, which was not untrue.
Still, because Moscow could not possibly conceive of a plan that would cast its ally President Bashar Al Assad aside, there was little room for Russian pragmatism.
This was especially telling as the fighting raged on the ground and, most likely, generated clandestine financial and military assistance to the Free Syrian Army. For Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the transition was an existential mystery, reflected in the affable official’s bewilderment when he asserted: “How exactly the work on a transition to a new stage is conducted will be decided by the Syrians themselves.”
Oblivious to daily Syrians demonstrations against the regime, Lavrov further claimed: “There are no demands to exclude from this process any one group. This aspect had been present in many of our partners’ proposals. We have convinced them that this is unacceptable.”
For his part, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, stressed that “outsiders cannot make decisions for the Syrian people,” equally at a loss how to address the multitudes that clamoured on a daily basis throughout Syria — and for the past 16 months — that they no longer wished to be ruled by the Baath Party.
Importantly, the Geneva Declaration recognised that the Al Assad family cannot lead the transition, and that the latter ought to comply with the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. For the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, this meant that there was no future role for Al Assad or senior members of the Baath Party in the country’s governance.
Even Kofi Annan recognised that while it was up to the Syrians to decide who they wanted in a unity government, he doubted that Syrians “would select people with blood on their hands to lead them.”
“History is a somber judge — and it will judge us all harshly if we prove incapable of taking the right path today,” stressed Annan as he informed the august assembly gathered near the Alps.
Of course, Annan was correct in this assessment, but was unlikely to be rewarded by future chronicles. Simply stated, the people of Syria no longer care for the Al Assad regime and are making history every day but continuing their resistance. No matter what Moscow and Beijing say, neither are making an effort to end the bloodshed, and it seems that neither can usher in a peaceful transition.
