Throwing a monkey wrench into U.N. Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura’s Geneva peace talks, SyriAN President Bashar al-Assad voted in a new parliament. Resuming Geneva peace talks today, de Mistura find himself caught between a rock-and-a-hard place trying to end the five-year-long Syrian “civil war.” Saudi Arabia, with U.S.,Turkey and European Union backing, insists that al-Assad can’t be part of an future Syria government, defying all common sense about sovereignty. How the Saudi’s decided that al-Assad’s sovereign government must go is anyone’s guess. Unlike governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, al-Assad decided to fight the so-called Arab Spring that toppled sovereign Arab states in 2011. “These elections do not mean anything,” said Asaad al-Zoubi, chief Geneva negotiator for Saudi Arabia “High Negotiations Committee.” “They are illegitimate—theater for the sake of procrastination, theater through which the regime in trying to give itself a little legitimacy.”
Forced into a ceasefire Feb. 27, when al-Assad’s Syrian forces, with Russian air strikes, were close to wiping out Saudi-backed opposition forces, de Mistura has an uphill battle finding common ground. Saudi Arabia insists that al-Assad can’t be part on any future Syrian transition plan, supplying its own government led by Jaysh al-Islam’s new leader Mohammed Alloush. Mohammed took the reins when Russian air strikes Dec. 25, 2015 killed Jaysh al-Islam’s 44-year-leader Zahran Alloush. Saudi Foreign Minsiter Abdel al-Jubeir went public with Saudi Arabia’s role of toppling al-Assad. Before Zahran’s death, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and U.S. pretended that al-Assad battled a homegrown insurgency or “civil war.” Jubeir left no doubt that the Syrian war was a Saudi-funded proxy war against al-Assad Shiite government. When Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to defend al-Assad Sept. 30, 2015, the five-year war shifted to al-Assad.
Holding parliamentary elections was a slap-in-the-face to a failed policy led by Saudi Arabia, but backed by Turkey, U.S. and European Union. “The decision of the regime to hold elections is a measure of how divorced it is from reality. They cannot buy back legitimacy by putting up a flimsy façade of democracy,” said a spokesman for the U.K. Showing the ultimate hypocrisy on “democracy,” the British government believes it can decide the sovereignty of U.N.-recognized regimes. Formed in 1920 after Ottoman rule, the Syrian Arab Republic eventually shook off French colonial rule April 17, 1946, establishing Syria Baathist rule under Hafez al-Assad March 8, 1963. No one at the U.N. or any other international body can explain how a group of U.N.-recognized states decides to end the sovereignty of a member state. Britain calls Syria’s actions to vote in a new parliament “illegitimate” but calls its demands for regime change “legitimate.”
Unlike the Saudi, U.S., Turkey and EU demands for regime change in Damascus, Russia backs new presidential elections once a new constitution is in place. “There is understanding already that a new constitution should emerge as a result of this political process, on the basis of which new early elections are to be held,” said Russian Foreign Minster Sergei Lavrov. Russia’s position backs al-Assad’s right to stay in power for now, until new elections decide whether or not Syria wants a new government. Putin made clear to the U.N. General Assembly Sept. 28, 2015 and meetings with President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western leaders that he opposes regime change in Damascus. Putin believes regime change would repeat the same power vacuums that left Iraq, Egypt and Libya flooded with Islamic terrorism. “But before this happens, one should avoid any legal vacuum in the sphere of executive power,” said Lavrov.
De Mistura’s Geneva peace talks can’t be a pretext for Saudi Arabia to assert control over a U.N. sovereign state. With at least 30% of Syria taken over by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS], there’s more at stake in Syrian than Saudi Arabia dictating a new government in Damascus. Neither Saudi Arabia nor any other state opposed to al-Assad can explain why they’e aligned with ISIS and al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front to topple al-Assad. Unlike the West, Putin recognizes the risks of another power vacuum where Damascus regime change would likely turn over Syria to a radical Islamic regime. Western powers like to blame al-Assad for over 250,000 deaths, millions of displaced Syrians, flooding neighboring countries. Al-Assad chose to defend his sovereignty over a Saudi-funded proxy war against his Shiite government. No sovereign government would allow a well-funded foreign insurgency to topple its regime without putting up a fight.
Calling Syrian parliamentary elections a ”sham” doesn’t detract from Syrians’ rights to support its government. There’s no evidence that a majority of rank-and-file Syrians oppose al-Assad’s Shiite regime. Saudi opposition groups, led by Jaysh al-Islam, can’t speak for Syrians backing al-Assad’s regime. “We hope to bring people together,” said Shereen Sirmani, who fled her home city of Deir al-Zor from ISIS. “We support Assad and these elections are a boost for him,” refuting the Saudi, Turkey, U.S. and EU narrative that Syrians want al-Assad out. De Mistura’s Syrian peace talks should focus on what must be done to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, not whether to evict al-Assad from power. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Turkey show much interest in battling ISIS, only ridding Damascus of al-Assad. With Russian backing, there’s little opposition forces can do get rid of al-Assad, other than continuing the bloody proxy war wreaking havoc on the region.
