Geneva II ... American mines killing their producers

Syria in Geneva today is negotiating America itself, where it’s representative Ford, (the former U.S. Ambassador to Damascus), was leading the group called the delegation of the “Syrian opposition coalition”, in the negotiations that America was forced to engage in after its universal aggression on Syria. America was forced to engage in such negotiations after the repeated failure and defeat in the field, after the results of failure exacerbated, and after its aggression with its successive motivations and multiple tactics on the Syrian ground, greatly utilized a lot of the tools and means, including what was known or named as the “field command”. The leaderships one after the other were used up, starting from Qatar to Turkey and finally to Saudi Arabia. (Well done, Minister of Foreign Affairs Walid al-Moallem not to enter into the negotiating room and to stay in a room close to it, so as to balance the formal scene with the American actor Ford, who controls the opposition delegation from a room near the room of negotiation). 

A.    America went to Geneva II, capitalizing on the negotiation episodes being directed by the representative of the secretary-general and his deputy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi. It was imagining that it could or its dreams were wishing to achieve one of three goals, as it wanted to achieve one of them, namely: 

1)    Embarrassing Syria, excluding and keeping it out through a series of snares and traps being created against it starting from the formula of the invitation and the agenda, associated with the Geneva I according to the American interpretation that is restrained and even rejected in Syria, passing through the invitation of Iran and then excluding it from the conference, and down to the secretary-general’s trap and his attempts to restrict the Syrian delegation’s powers at the opening of the conference. 

The United States imaged that provoking Syria this way will lead Syria to reject to participate in the Geneva II Conference, and to look like rejecting a peaceful solution, contrary to the truth, and then it assumes responsibility for this and for the consequences internationally. 

2)    To achieve its primary goal i.e. to change the Syrian political regime and to replace it with a puppet regime that it can control and through which it can re-draw the strategic map of Syria and the region, so as to implement this through a maneuver of deception and fraud to which it resort through the interpretation of the statement of the Geneva I; the statement of June 30, 2012, including what is in harmony with this aspiration. This means considering the Geneva II a body with an executive function to the significant statement that would be considered as a founding document that includes changing the regime and its staff comprehensively as desired or defined by America. 

3)    To gain time through the processes of negotiation and to resort to the so-called the humanitarian operations to provide opportunities for its armed communities to restore a balance in the field and to halt the Syrian Arab army’s enthusiasm and to prevent it from accumulating the military achievements, as well as to prevent Syria from investing the program of national reconciliations that are held being sponsored by the State and its government. 

America needs time to re-organize the armed groups and to stop the fighting among its ranks, in a way that grants the United States papers of a field power that are ready to be invested. 
 
B.    On the other hand, Syria and its allies, especially in the axis of resistance and at the forefront Iran, were aware of the American plan, and realized its goals, and each part of them have had positions that suits it and that is able to end the intrigue and to put a end to the maneuver. Thus, we can say now, and after the first round of confrontation: 

1) The snares that were created to embarrass Syria and to hold it accountable for the failure of the Geneva II, these snares exploded and killed the people that planted them and granted Syria a valuable opportunity to appear in front of the whole world as a coherent state that has its men who are defending it in the political, diplomatic, media as well as in the military fields, and the whole world mow know how Syria is leading its defensive operations successfully and professionally. 

2) Doing what America wants i.e. to hand over power to its agents is impossible, for there is no power in the world that can impose on Syria its rulers, and if the statement of the Geneva means this according to the American understanding, therefore, this statement will be in this item acting against its creators and will not be implemented. This comes because what the Syrian state accepts best today and what could be implemented is to accept to form a government of national unity, appointed by President al-Assad, who is continuing his full powers according to the Constitution in force, and this government should include people of the so-called opposition and the proportion of their representation depend on how much they represent the Syrian people. 

3) Granting opportunities to terrorist groups to reorganize is impracticable, because deceiving the safe corridors, the humanitarian hallways, and the relief operations cannot deceive a state and officials who faced aggression for 3 years and a half and were taught about its maneuvers, conspiracies, and lies. Those who think that introducing those “food and non-food aids”, as Lakhdar Brahimi mentioned, will enable them to introduce arms and ammunition to the area of Homs, and to abort the Syrian strategic achievement which was represented in Al-Quser’s  battle and what followed it, are in our opinion mistaken. 

The Western scheme will not find itself in a position that could help it to link Tripoli in northern Lebanon to Homs and al-Badia in Syria as it wants. 

As for the humanitarian aid itself, supplying the Syrians with it anywhere on the Syrian territory is a formal Syrian requirement, on which the state is working, but the terrorists are preventing its achievement. Therefore, the implementation of this with some limits that are related to the humanitarian supplies when being coupled with the release of some imprisoned and captives, will also be a fulfillment of the desire of Syria, since the state is working as if it taking full care of the entire land of Syria and the entire Syrian citizens. 

Based on this, we can say that the United States will fail in Geneva II as it also failed in the Syrian field. The United States will fail this time and not the Geneva II, unless Geneva II was seen from an American perspective, then we will say the said conference failed as well.

However, things will be different if Geneva II was seen from another perspective, for Syria stressed its international position, broke the Western media siege throughout the 3 years, and proved that it owns the elements that enable it to succeed in self-defense and in defending the rights in all fields. 

Given this expected American failure, there will be no weight or value to the efforts made by the Saudi Foreign Minister to rush to say that the Syrian person is just called a Syrian no matter what his position or rank was and to say that the Head of the Delegation of the United States at the conference (the Head of the opposition coalition) is called “Mr. President”. The dream of America to dismantle the Syrian State with its institutions and army as it did in Iraq will never come true, for there will be no room for “a Syrian transitional governing council”, and the terrorists will not have the opportunities to regain what they lost or to heal what have been damaged of their system in the face of the Syrian Arab Army and the ally forces. 

As a conclusion we say that if Geneva II is set to achieve the abovementioned American goals, then it will certainly fail in this, but if America actually understood reality and read it objectively, the conference will then succeed in finding a solution that saves a bit of the present suffering. Yet, we do not see that this objectivity is possible with the colonial thought... The Geneva II might offer something at the humanitarian level, whereas at the political level, nothing will be valuable but only what the Syrian State wants, in agreement with the decision of its people.