Coalition delegation of so-called “opposition” rejects a political communiqué containing principles submitted by official Syrian delegaiton
Geneva, Jan 27, 2014 (SANA delegate) – The Syrian Arab Republic’s official delegation to the Geneva 2 Conference presented a “basic elements of a political communiqué” containing principles which the coalition delegation of the so-called “opposition” rejected.
The communiqué affirms respecting Syria’s sovereignty, restoring its usurped lands, preserving its establishments, and abandoning all forms of extremism, fanaticism and takfiri ideas.
The communiqué rejects all forms of interference or foreign dictation, with the Syrians deciding upon their country’s future using democratic methods, in addition to asserting that that it’s not permissible to relinquish any part of Syria.
The communiqué stresses that the Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic country based on the basis of political pluralism, the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and citizenship, and protecting national unity and cultural diversity of the components of the Syrian society and protecting public freedom, and the Syrians are the ones who have have the right to choose their political system withoutout compromising on any subject unacceptable to the syrian people from any imposed formulae.
The communiqué asks all countries to prevent supplying weapons or training or harboring terrorists, and also stopping all kinds of media hatred incitment to perpetrate terrorist acts in accordance with international resolutions relevant to combating terrorism.
The communiqué also noted that the state establishment cost people money and hard work and therefore must be preserved, in addition to stressing the need to preserve and protect all state establishments and utilities, infrastructure, and public and private properties.
Sources close to the Syrian official delegation to Geneva asserted that the delegation was and still is open to discussing all points, but it proposed these principles which no patriotic Syrian would reject in order to find common ground, yet the coalition delegation of the so-called “opposition” rejected them.
English Bulletin
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/01/27/524586.htm
===
14 January, 2014 – Geneva II – Washington’s Plan B for Regime Change in Syria http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/01/geneva-ii-washingtons-plan-b-regime-change-syria/
Jan 22, 2014 – Geneva II: Iran nixed proves US fixed – There is a good reason why Iran has been blocked from attending the Geneva II conference on Syria – because the meeting is not about finding a peaceful settlement. Rather, it is merely an American mechanism for engineering regime change in Syria.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/21/346914/geneva-ii-iran-nixed-proves-us-fixed/
Photo: President Obama and his friend, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The United States is responsible for supplying arms to saudi arabia and terrorist groups in Syria.
Latest News Syria 
Geneva-2: Keeping Iran Away Matches US – Saudi Interests
20.01.2014
An international peace conference for Syria will begin on January 22. Will Iran take part in Geneva-2? Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said evasively that his country could take part if invited,
«If the Islamic Republic of Iran is invited to this conference with no preconditions, Iran will participate». The phantom thaw in the relations between Washington and Tehran and convincing attitude the Iranian diplomacy adopted at the nuclear talks did not sway the United States opposition to the Iran’s participation. Neither the support of the idea of Iran’s participation by Ban Ki-moon, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations, nor the talks between Russian Foreign Minister with US State Secretary John Kerry, convinced the US administration that Tehran’s taking part in the event was expedient, the stance that could be viewed as a whim. Geneva-2 has a chance to be a success only if it offers vast representation, Iran exerts great impact on the situation in Syria. At that, being a leading player, it is kept away from the international crisis management process. It looks like a provocation against Iran on the part of Washington and an attempt to vex Moscow by declining the list of invitations it proposes… There are great doubts the conference will succeed without Iran taking part or its support for the crisis management process after the conference is over. Sergey Lavrov emphasizes that the upcoming January 22 event is a round of talks which will be launched to continue, not to start and end. The recent exchanged of views that was recently held in Moscow between Sergey Lavrov and Mohammad Javad Zarif, as well as the recent tripartite Russia – Iran – Syria involving Syria Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, displayed the three countries common support for Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and equal rights of all ethnic and religious groups. There is no ground to talk about some kind of a three-party project, but the White House became jittery, it hates to stay on the sidelines. The last Walid Muallem’s visit to Moscow resulted in making public the Syrian initiative on chemical disarmament. Now the Smolenskaya Ploshad (Smolenskaya square is where the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is located in Moscow) negotiation process is joined by Iranian foreign policy chief. John Kerry had a phone conversation with Sergey Lavrov who calmed him down, «We have nothing to hide, and we don’t have any hidden agenda», he said. Moscow, Tehran and Damascus agree that the failure to convene Geneva-2 will result in people’s suffering and further exacerbation of the situation in the Middle East. The question is – what goal does the United States pursue by refusing to let Iran take part in the conference?
John Kerry agrees that Iran may have an important role to play in the Syria’s crisis management process, but only as an informal conference participant. The Western allies of the United States insist Iran abide by the guidelines defining the formation of Syria would-be interim government. They want Iran to call on Damascus to stop bombings and open a humanitarian corridor that would allow for the delivery of aid to refugees. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the conference would fail and would produce no result without Iran’s attendance, and noted that the United States was opposing the idea of inviting Iran. He stressed that Washington had not deviated from one-sided support for the opponents of Bashar Assad.
Indeed, this is the case when the United States happens to be in the same boat with the Syrian opposition which strongly insists Iran be excluded from the list of Geneva-2 participants because Tehran renders military and political support to the Syrian regime. Do the United States and its regional allies abstain from providing aid for Syrian militants in revolt against the government? What about the joint plan prepared by Russia and Iran related to Syria’s voluntary chemical disarmament preventing a combined military action of the United States of America, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Saudi Arabia against Syria?
At the same time neither Moscow, nor Tehran object to the participation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Geneva-2, no matter this country has challenged the international community many a time. Annoyed by doing away with the plans to conduct a military operation against Syria, Saudi Arabia stunned the world by rejecting a highly coveted seat on the Security Council, a decision taken as a protest action that underscored the depth of Saudi anger over what the monarchy sees as weak and conciliatory Western stances toward Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival. Riyadh is no more tolerant towards international initiatives on Iranian nuclear program. It openly calls for regime change in Syria and spares no money for arming the Syrian opposition. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has joined the ranks of most ardent enemies of Bashar Assad and his regime; it has become the main sponsor of terrorism in Syria. Doesn’t Saudi Arabia deserve sanctions imposed by the United Nations Organization and taking tough punitive actions against it like, for instance, the imposition of oil embargo by the United States and the European Union in the case of Iran?
At that, Riyadh does not appear to be afraid of negative reaction on the part of the United Nations. The royal family is sure that Washington and its European allies will turn a blind eye on whatever Saudi Arabia does in the region, at least for the reason of the United States of America and leading European powers’ interest in being involved in lucrative arms deals with Riyadh. For instance, US $60 billion Saudi arms deal. Saudi Arabia is expected to increase the arms procurement almost threefold with the United States as the chief supplier.
Aside from giant expenditure to enhance its armed forces, Riyadh is ready to arm other states of the region in exchange for their loyalty. For instance, Saudi Arabia promised $3 billion aid to the Lebanese military to procure arms from France. The European Union wants the embargo on arms supplies to the Syrian opposition be lifted as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plans to form two armies to wage wars of aggression against Syria and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is hardly expected to be a constructive contributor to the peaceful management of Syria’s conflict. Riyadh has taken a decision to make its clients launch a direct military intervention against Syria. It will use the armies of mercenaries to achieve its plans. The first army with headquarters in Riyadh will be 50-75 thousand strong. It will recruit Saudi citizens to fill the top and rank and file positions. The second will enlist foreign mercenaries. 50 thousand strong at first, it will boost the strength twofold or even threefold in future. No matter all the international efforts going on, Saudi Arabia continues to use terror against the Bashar Assad’s government in Syria it wants to get rid of so much.
Today the global terrorist network is being reshaped. A great number of new, independent groups appear. Many of them get funds from the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. In the case of the United States of America and NATO it brings up the issue of revising the relationship with their traditional allies in the Middle East. It’s not about choosing between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but rather between terror and diplomacy or war and peace.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/01/20/geneva-2-keeping-iran-away-matches-us-saudi-interests.html
Geneva II conference: US and allies, not Iran, are major obstacles to peace in Syria
Jan 20, 2014
The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced at a news conference Sunday that Iran has been invited to the Geneva II peace talks scheduled to start Tuesday in Montreux, Syria.
But the United States objected to the invitation, saying Iran has not met all the conditions for attending the conference set out in the Geneva I communiqué of June 30, 2012.
The Syrian National Conference (SNC) also objected to the invitation, threatening to withdraw from the peace talks if Iran is allowed to attend.
But the UN secretary-general said that Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has assured him privately that Iran wants to play “a positive and constructive role” in the talks convened ostensibly to end the war in Syria.
The US State Department, however, insisted that Iran would need to give “explicit and public support for the full implementation of the Geneva communiqué, including the establishment of a transitional governing body by mutual consent with full executive authorities.”
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki [Unlink] said in a statement: “If Iran does not fully and publicly accept the Geneva communiqué, the invitation must be rescinded.”
The Geneva I communiqué recommends a transitional body to take over government in Syria, implying that President Bashar Assad would have to leave office.
There are doubts that the Iranians would accept such terms without reservations, having backed the Assad’s government in the Syrian war.
Opinion
The insistence that the Iranians must accept terms of the Geneva I communiqué, which recommends a transitional government with full executive powers that excludes Assad, only allows the Syrian opposition to achieve through negotiations a victory they have been unable to achieve on the battlefield.
Needless to say, granting such a concession to the Syrian opposition makes no strategic sense from the perspective of the Syrian regime and its backer Iran.
Reasonably, one would expect that conveners of peace talks would be anxious that all major parties in the conflict be part of peace negotiations and thus would refrain from setting the bar too high to exclude major participants in the conflict.
You don’t negotiate peace with yourself; you negotiate peace with the enemy. It, therefore, makes no sense to convene peace talks while actively trying to exclude a major party in the conflict.
The Iranians have shown their willingness to compromise by dropping their earlier demand for an unconditional invitation.
The senselessness of excluding Iran by setting unrealistic preconditions for its participation in the peace talks is further highlighted by the fact that Saudi Arabia, the other major participant in the war, is attending.
The Saudi-backed opposition is insisting on excluding Assad from the proposed transitional government in spite of the Geneva I communiqué stating that “It (the transitional government) could include members of the present government and the opposition.”
But only Iran has the clout to force Assad to make major concessions for peace, such as stepping down from power to allow a transitional government to organize a free and fair election in which the Syrian president is allowed to participate.
A peace conference without Iran would, therefore, be nothing more than a jamboree of the Syrian opposition and their backers.
This is not the way to peace.
Pushing the UN to set up “peace talks” which exclude Iran raises questions about the real motives of the Western powers.
There are strong indications that the motive of the US is not peace but strengthening the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime.
The New York Times reports that US officials admit frankly that they do not expect the talks to yield far-reaching results.
Of course, they couldn’t expect major results when the plan is to exclude Iran, a major participant in the conflict.
That the Iranians are aware of the Western agenda in the talks is reflected in the comment by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, that the conveners must take a realistic view and not call a conference with the sole aim of “strengthening of extremist movements in Syria.”
Iran has consistently and reasonably insisted that it does not approve of the West imposing its solution on the Syrians. The Russians have also pointed to the failure of the Western-backed agenda in Libya and Iraq as compelling reasons why the West should not be allowed to have its way in Syria.
When the Iranians say they want “a democratic solution that will be manifested in their (Syrians) votes,” what they mean is that they want a transitional government to organize an election in which Assad is allowed to participate.
This is reasonable proposal to end the war.
The Saudi-backed opposition, however, demands exclusion of Assad from the process altogether. This is not reasonable demand in the circumstances in which they have not secured a decisive advantage in the war.
The reaction of American officials to Ban Ki-moon’s invitation to the Iranians shows they had not expected the announcement – a fact which reflects a rift between the US and the UN secretary-general.
Ban, it seems, would rather set up an opportunity for peace talks to resolve the conflict than allow himself to be used by the US and its Middle East allies to provide a forum to legitimize a unilateral agenda in Syria.
After having witnessed what US intervention achieved in Libya and Iraq, Ban should be excused for not wishing to play along with the Americans.
If the US and Saudi Arabia really want peace in Syria, they should allow the Iranians to participate in the talks without setting unrealistic preconditions such as insisting on the exclusion of Assad from the transitional government.
The Americans know that the Iranians have a proposal for peace that is fairer to all the parties in the conflict: An election in which Assad participates could fairly be considered a referendum to determine the wish of the Syrian people.
Apparently the Americans don’t want this. Their agenda is to replicate the chaos in Libya and Iraq in Syria.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16374000-geneva-ii-conference-us-and-its-allies-are-the-major-obstacle-to-peace-in-syria-not-iran