There is a Russian-Syrian disagreement on the role of Bashar Al Assad in Syria’s transition and post-transition periods, argued Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the news website Rai Al Youm.
Russian deputy foreign minister Michael Bogdanov can usually say what foreign minister Sergey Lavrov cannot say in public to send indirect messages to the parties involved, the writer noted, and he recently criticised President Al Assad’s statement about his intention to run for upcoming presidential elections, saying it does not help calm the situation.
The Russians know well that after all that has happened, especially the advances President Al Assad’s forces have been making, he will not readily give up power or accept a marginal role at the Geneva talks. Otherwise he would not have continued his brutal crackdown throughout the three-year conflict.
However, as the Geneva meeting draws nearer, the Russians do not want any statements that create more obstacles to their diplomacy, especially after they managed to convince most of the Syrian opposition and the US not to insist that Al Assad must step down before they will take part in the Geneva conference.
Hours after Mr Bogdanov’s statement, his Syrian counterpart Faisal Al Mekdad said: “No one can prevent President Al Assad from running for another presidential term in 2014.”
The question is whether this exchange between the two allies at this delicate time spontaneous or planned? There are two explanations that may provide an answer.
In the first, Russia might really be studying the US proposal of reducing the powers of the Syrian president during the transition that may last for two years. This means the presidential election will be cancelled or postponed.
In the second explanation, President Al Assad might have sensed Russia’s new orientation and pre-empted any attempt to have him sidelined during the forthcoming Geneva conference, saying openly that he intended to run for re-election.
Unless his allies, and particularly Russia, Iran and Hizbollah, abandon him – and so far there no sign of that – it is unlikely that Mr Al Assad will give up power at the Geneva conference because this would mean his end.
The US and western nations have not so far accused President Al Assad of war crimes or called for him to be tried before the International Criminal Court, as they did with Libya’s Muammar Al Qaddafi.
Meanwhile, the Syrian president has learnt from the Iranian allies how to say “yes, but” and show flexibility towards conferences, while at the same continuing to push everyone towards a precipice. This flexibility, along with his staunch army, are two major reasons behind his survival up so far. Playing for time is a crux of the Syrian diplomacy, the writer remarked.
South Sudan is at a fateful crossroads
Even the most pessimist of observers was not predicting an outbreak of violence as fierce as the one witnessed in the fledgling state of South Sudan in the past days, said the Dubai-based daily Al Bayan in its editorial this Sunday.
The violence, reportedly along ethnic lines, began on December 15 with an attempted military coup against president Salva Kiir. The blame was placed on former vice president Riek Machar. Fighting between ethnic groups ensued and spread throughout the country soon after.
South Sudan is at its most fragile since its people chose to separate from Sudan two years ago and establish an independent entity. It still lacks the basic requirements for a state to function and survive and also faces a failing economy and tribal turmoil.
“The present situation calls for dialogue and nothing but dialogue,” the paper suggested.
“No matter how big the rift, conflict must be avoided at all costs. The choice to return to a state of war would be disastrous to the country and to the highly flammable region.”
This is a critical moment in South Sudan’s narrative.
Either it will go down in history that a conflict motivated by power and greed between two men threw the country back into civil war, or it will be said that both sides of the conflict made concessions for the sake of the greater good.
Hizbollah’s future is facing a triple threat
Misfortunes never come singly, not least for Hizbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite-party-turned-militia in Lebanon, Abdul Rahman Al Rashed wrote in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat.
Hizbollah is facing three major political setbacks that may signal its downfall: its forces are severely depleted in Syria; Sunni radical groups are challenging it on its own turf and, most critically, it will be affected by the prospective US-Iranian reconciliation.
The losses Hizbollah is suffering in Syria far surpass anything it had to deal in three decades of battles with Israel.
In Lebanon, northern Sunni radicalism has escalated to the point where they look at Hizbollah as a model to imitate. They seek to form armed groups that have deciding power on the ground; a development that goes against Hizbollah’s interests.
But none of the above would imperil the Shiite militia more than the anticipated deal between Washington and Tehran, which would surely have at the top of its stipulations the dismantling of Hizbollah’s military power.
“The deal in the first place aims to remove Iran’s nuclear power that threatens the very existence of the Jewish state. It can’t be reached without the approval of Israelis, who will surely demand that Hizbollah be taken apart,” the writer explained.
Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
translation@thenational.ae