It answers: ‘Those who follow the political and diplomatic activity concerning the international crisis in Syria almost believe what the Western media and their Arab followers are promoting. They are led to believe that everything has been settled and that only one point remains to be resolved: President Bashar al-Assad’s situation in the coming solution.
In order not to go far in our imagination, it is useful to return to the early days of the aggression on Syria. Everyone remembers that as soon as reform demands were raised, President Bashar al-Assad began taking steps to bring in those reforms, beginning with a revision of the constitution and ending with every detail related to the building of the state and the formation of its powers.
But the party that controlled the decision of the activism responded to this official position by militarising the protests and quickly calling for the toppling of the regime. It focused more on its demand that the president step down. Here, the shouts of the internal alleys of the field harmonised with the whispers of the external corridors of diplomacy, all focusing on one idea: bringing the term of the constitutionally elected president to an end and delegitimizing him upon a US decision that was made in the first weeks of the crisis.
The Hebrew League (formerly Arab League) got involved in the implementation of the mission that the Americans assigned it; namely, providing a solution to the Syrian crisis based essentially on President Al-Assad’s departure from the Syrian scene.
At the Geneva meeting, the United States tried to impose this will. But when it failed and the Geneva Declaration did not include that condition, Hillary Clinton rushed – before the ink of this international declaration dried – to distort it. She said that the agreed-upon transitional solution begins with Al-Assad’s departure.
When the United States, Russia, and the United Nations met in Dublin to discuss a mechanism for the implementation of the Geneva Declaration, the three parties reportedly agreed on a solution of which President Al-Assad will not be part.
In light of this recurring position and central intention we ask why the Americans are focused on President Al-Assad’s position in his country.
To begin with, the United States has no right or power to make such a demand. Presidents of independent and sovereign states are appointed and accredited by their peoples; foreigners have no say in this. Does the United States, for example, accept that Russia, or any other country, dictate to it who its president should be?
Of course it does not accept this. Yet it allows itself to do this in every country. And now it is doing it in Syria for two reasons: the first is related to the US mentality and the second to the interests Washington seeks to achieve in and through Syria.
As far as mentality is concerned, it is now known for sure that the United States does not recognise the national sovereignty of any country.
In the past two decades it promoted the theory of international intervention, used its troops and diplomats to violate the sovereignty of other nations, and tried to appear as the sole leader of the world.
As far as interests are concerned, we find from a review of history, a look at the present, and a forecast of the future, that the US interests, in and through Syria, conflict with the presence of a state headed by a president with a sovereign and independent approach like President Bashar al-Assad.
The United States believes that the removal of this sovereign president helps it achieve more than one objective and interest. It gives it a chance to take revenge against the president who foiled its policy in the Middle East and to continue to spread the destructive American instability, which is today rampant in the countries of what it falsely called the Arab Spring.
The removal of President Al-Assad also helps the United States cover the crimes that were committed by terrorists that Washington sent to Syria from the beginning of the crisis. The situation can be reviewed in the following points:
A. The United States mobilised tens of thousands of world terrorists and prisoners from 29 countries implementing its orders and dictates and sent them to Syria on a mission of killing and destruction to wipe the country out of the regional equation that threatens Israel.
Through those who were misled and deluded into believing they are fighting for Islam, freedom, and justice – and naturally their actions have nothing to do with any of this – the United States implemented a mission that was translated into crimes in the field. As the planner and instigator, the United States should be held responsible for these crimes.
Now Washington wants to cover these atrocious crimes or blame the Syrian State for them because President Al-Assad’s remaining in power will definitely lead to pursuing those who committed the crimes against Syria, which resulted in:
1. Killing thousands of Syrians, promoting the culture of criminality, and distorting bodies in order to undermine national unity.
2. Killing human elites to deprive Syria of its resources. Humans are the basis of Syria’s wealth.
3. Destroying hundreds of thousands of Syrian homes and displacing Syrians at home and abroad.
4. Destroying thousands of Syrian factories to undermine the Syrian economy, especially in industries that compete with Turkish industries.
5. Destroying large parts of the Syrian infrastructure to complicate the lives of the Syrians and waste the national resources.
6. Destroying and disrupting dozens of national civilian, military, security, and economic installations in order to turn Syria into a failed state.
B. As for the relationship between the United States, the aggressor, and Al-Assad, the president resisting this aggression, the United States wants to take revenge against President Al-Assad because he foiled its policy in the Middle East and deprived it, through his work with his allies in the resistance and opposition axis, of the chance to control the region. In particular, the United States does not forget the following:
1. When he assumed office, President Al-Assad underlined Syria’s commitments and regional and international status, consolidating the strategic alliance with Iran and sponsoring the Arab resistance against Israel.
2. When the United States occupied Iraq and presented a list of demands to Syria – demands that can be summed by one sentence: you have to surrender and join the US convoy or else… – Al-Assad refused to surrender and adhered to Syria’s position in order to safeguard Syria’s independence, independent decision, and commitment to national and pan-Arab rights.
3. When the United States tried, upon its own decisions or upon international resolutions directed against Syria, to put into practice its theory that international intervention takes precedence over national sovereignty – which conflicts with the UN Charter – Al-Assad rejected this and adhered to Syria’s national sovereignty, saying that no sovereignty rises above Syria’s sovereignty.
4. When the United States tried to reshape the Middle East in a way that serves its own interests and chose to start this effort by destroying the resistance in Lebanon at Israel’s hands, Al-Assad supported the resistance and provided Hezbollah with weapons that hit deep into Israel and forced Israel to stop and announce its defeat in Lebanon in 2006, which added to its defeat in 2000.
5. When the West staged a strategic coup and brought its agents in Lebanon to power, a power they exercised in an exclusionary mentality; and when the West pushed its agents to take provocative decisions with a view to disarming the resistance, forcing the latter to respond to defend itself, with this situation causing instability in the country, Al-Assad intervened to save the situation. His intervention deeply influenced the Doha conference, which resulted in an agreement that ended the monopoly of power by the pro-America team.
6. When Israel launched its aggression on Gaza, Syria, along with its allies in the resistance axis, supported the Palestinian resistance, which managed, with the available resources, to prevent Israel from realising the objectives of its aggression.
C. As for Syria’s future after this crisis, the United States believes that President Bashar al-Assad is able, through Syria’s own capabilities and international alliances, to address the repercussions of the American aggression on Syria and even create a better Syria - as happened to Beirut’s southern suburb after its destruction at the hands of Israel in 2006 – especially since the United States knows that the huge psychological warfare and all the media efforts failed to change the convictions of the Syrian people and their support for their president.
An unpublished Qatar-financed poll conducted secretly by a European organisation upon a US request revealed that 56.7 per cent of Syrians would elect Bashar al-Assad in any free election held now (the percentage in a poll conducted in the same way eight months ago was 55 per cent).
This is why the United States and its Western group reject any solution based on ballot boxes and insist on a settlement in which rulers are imposed on the Syrian people (even if against their will).
For a ruler rejected by his people would have no choice but to throw himself in its lap in order to gain protection, and he would deprive his country of stability and the ability to develop, and would not be able to secure wellbeing for his people or maintain their sovereignty and national rights.
This is exactly what the United States wants within its policy of bringing nations to their knees. Because the United States knows that Bashar al-Assad’s stay as the head of the state guarantees the unity of Syria and the return of the country to its status on the strategic regional map, and leads to the failure of the entire plan, President Bashar al-Assad has turned in the eyes of the United States into a symbol and a decisive factor in the success or failure of the Western plan.
D. With these facts in mind, we ask: Will the United States be able to realise its objectives in Syria?
It is not difficult for us to answer in the negative. We are confident because we know for sure that Syria can proceed successfully with its defensive battle leaning on its own power, which is made up of its people, Army, and political leadership, and on the resistance axis, in which it is the central pillar, and benefiting from the support of an international front that knows that its interests are served when Syria stands firm and succeeds in its defence and that realises that Syria always rejects foreign dictates and does not accept a decision made by others, even if a brother, a friend, or an ally.
For all this we say that the Syrian people alone decide who rules them. The enlightened Syrian people will not listen to deception, dictates, or tricks, and they are ready to make the small remaining sacrifices before declaring their imminent victory.’