Part one of four: The Saudis' Man for Scuttling Peace
September 18, 2019
edits Sept. 20, 21
Note: this is a decent-size part of a huge bottlenecked and delayed project I'll do in four parts, with parts 2 and 3 expected to fall in place quicker, and part 4 a bit later. There was a lot of related details I didn't know and had to do lookups, ranging from quick to fairly deep, and wanted to relate most of it in one place. Or. I was thinking two, but the first one had to be split, and in three works best. All-told, I'll explain: the Saudis' Man for scuttling peace, peddling lies, and promoting genocide.
Al-Zoubi was born in Daraa province, where his clan is large and prominent (FWIW the family name translates "doubtful"). It's spawned a previous prime minister of Syria, and their current information minister, besides this SNC-FSA sellout. The Daraa Zoubis were targeted early on in the uprising. In one case, a reported 16 of that name, aged 17-75, were the largest sector among 52 men and boys killed in a late-April, 2011 "Saida massacre." One of them was the famous 12-year-old Hamza al-Khatib. The lodged story of that event has been thoroughly disproven, by the way. (See my 2016 report - and the eldest Al-Zoubi got to be the first entry in the “Caesar photos” file.) Asaad al-Zoubi may have bought into the claims of a massacre of his kin at Saida, but it took a while before he defected sometime the following year. It's not clear what he did for the next 3+ years prior to January, 2016, when he was chosen for an important job.
Defected Syrian prime minister Riad Hijab was selected in December 2015 to head the Supreme Negotiations Committee (aka High/Higher Negotiations Committee, hereafter HNC) being formed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Wikipedia) This was to be a broadest-yet umbrella of opposition groups, ranging from moderate Islamist to extremist, but excluding designated terrorist groups, including some ostensible secular voices, at least one prominent Christian, and even a Kurdish contingent was involved, briefly. The HNC was given the power to select the opposition delegates for the upcoming peace-oriented, talk-related process called Geneva III, or the 3rd Geneva conference on "the future of Syria." Hijab selected Gen. Al-Zoubi as the "head of delegation" for the HNC but had him working with two others:
* "chief negotiator" on the team: Mohammed Alloush, acting political leader of the extremist, sectarian terrorist group Jaish al-Islam, and a relative of genocide-minded JaI founder Zahran (or Mohammed Zahran?) Alloush. Zahran's father was a salafist cleric long-ago exiled to Saudi Arabia for criminal extremism. Riyadh sent strong support to his son's JaI in Douma, so by 2016 they were holding half the Damascus suburbs hostage and able to hit the capitol on command, besides fielding franchises throughout Syria. So Mohammed Alloush was a natural choice to head up some tough "negotiations." His marketing-heavy education and fairly polished style (well-trimmed beard, etc.) were definite recommending features as well. (some prior work on JaI bringing Hell to E. Ghouta while sending Alloush to Geneva.)
* The “we're not Islamists” guy on the team: George Sabra, an anti-Assad CHRISTIAN! apologist for terrorism and total puppet (NCSROF until 2018 anyway). He's also a writer for the Arabic version of Sesame Street, so he gets how muppets and puppets have their words written for them. (Wikipedia)
Syria, Russia, Iran, and Egypt opposed the HNC's decision to have members of terrorist groups (by their formal, legal definitions) have a leading say in "the future of Syria." They referred to Alloush's Jaish Al-Islam and to Ahrar Al-Sham, who also had at least one member involved. (Al-Masdar News) But that formula was forced through, causing visible problems from the start.
Before January was out, U.N. special envoy Staffan De Mistura complained the HNC was trying to make itself "THE opposition delegation" - a position supported by the U.S. Obama administration. As the same Al-Masdar article put it: "According to UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, Saudi Arabia is attempting to complicate his efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the war in Syria." In context, they were using the HNC as a tool to that end, and Gen. al-Zoubi was picked as one of its trusted operators. As De Mistura said, the core issue involved the HNC's "seriousness about the process," which was needed to "give a meaning to a peace conference.” This is the bouncing ball to follow in the following paragraphs.
It seems there was a lot of pre-dialog before any meetings in Geneva began in March. At the start of February, Reuters reported, “Bashar al-Jaafari, head of the government delegation, said on Sunday Damascus was considering options such as ceasefires, humanitarian corridors and prisoner releases ... as a result of the talks, not as a condition to begin them." But "the opposition High Negotiations Committee indicated it would leave Geneva unless peace moves were implemented (first)." Likelihood of progress: minimal. Still, an early ceasefire was agreed to by the U.S. and Russia in late February. It was the first one ever agreed on such a scale, per a Wikipedia article on them that fails to even mention the HNC. This ceasefire held with “hiccups” and fragility, through July, by most accounts, with both sides blaming each other for the all the failures.
With first meetings in Geneva planned for March 12, a March 10 Reuters report has Al-Zoubi threatening to pull the HNC out at the last moment because of “massacres” and a "conspiracy." "The head of the Syrian opposition's negotiating team said on Thursday it was not optimistic about peace talks getting under way in Geneva, and has still not confirmed if it will attend the U.N.-backed negotiations." Al-Zoubi is cited as telling Al Arabiya and/or al Hadath TV (both Saudi-run) "There is no optimism ... there is an international conspiracy and a cover-up of Russian massacres and a cover-up for (president) Bashar."
On March 12, however, they did arrive in Geneva, ready to blame the other side from a closer distance. (HNC tweet)
Add Sept. 21: A Reuters report of 6 April said "the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front … last week attacked and captured" the town of Telat al-Eis south of Aleppo, killing 11 Hezbollah fighters and 43 Syrian soldiers in the process, then "shot down a Syrian warplane on Tuesday (the 5th) and captured its pilot." This triggered, on the 6th, "intense air strikes in the southern Aleppo area," described as "the fiercest government assault in the area since an agreement to ease the fighting came into effect in February." The HNC's al-Zoubi was quoted on this story: he "told Reuters the truce was “in danger of ending” due to government violations." He referred to the February deal he apparently had nothing to do with, and seems to mean these new strikes against the designated terrorists of al-Nusra Front, who were never party to the ceasefire (although some covered "moderate" forces were working with Nusra and coming under attack). More on this issue in part 3.
By April 13, the HNC had lost its Kurdish portion (see part 2), and talks at Geneva had reached a likely related “deadlock,” and taken a recess (time frame unclear). Thing were just resuming when al-Zoubi declared, as a DW.com article puts it: "President Bashar al-Assad is the problem and Syria can only start to heal once he's gone." Or as an AP report translated his day's comments, Al-Zoubi said president Assad is a "disease" and Russia is "not serious" about the obvious cure of removal from power, the only hope for Syria's future. (Associated Press)
Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said a transitional government as proposed amounts to a coup d'etat and "will never be accepted". He noted how most of the world except Saudi Arabia and Turkey have given up on pushing for Assad's removal. Mekdad explained "if we have to proceed" with talks, "then we need to forget or we need others to forget the dreams they had for the last five years." (Belfast Telegraph) But Zoubi knew it was destiny, not a dream. Parliamentary elections in Syria began at the same time, but he said, also on the 13th, “These elections do not mean anything.” Because they don't require Assad to step down, they were "theater for the sake of procrastination" – that is, putting off the inevitable. (Reuters) Basis for expecting progress: slim.
Two days later, Zoubi used fresh alleged attacks on Aleppo to declare “the regime ... sends a strong message that it doesn’t want a political solution, but a military solution that will bring destruction to the whole country.” He added that same-day administrative moves showed Damascus was “not serious about the political solution” and “divorced from reality.” (Reuters 15 April). Back in reality, 17 April, "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will remain in power for just four months longer, until a transitional government takes control of the war-torn country" according to HNC's Mohammed Alloush. The form of it wasn't agreed yet; "another HNC source" (al-Zoubi?) outlined a proposal for a new government they recently heard, but rejected: "Effectively, Assad would stay in a ceremonial position. But we categorically rejected the proposal," the source added. (The New Arab - 17 April) They're way too 'in touch with reality' to settle for that. A "disease" has to be wiped out, not compromised with or left as a figurehead. They preferred the deal they had (?) where Assad would be out of power in four months time.
Also on 17 April, al-Zoubi paused his confident peace-talking and transition plans to send out word to the fighters: “We will not stay for long negotiating.. .In the event a missile targets them (rebels), they have to retaliate with ten missiles,” … rebels “must gain control of as many areas as possible, they must take advantage of the ceasefire as the regime has done”. (Reuters)
It must be noted, and here seems good: it's not always clear even now what exactly the “criminal Assad regime” has really done as opposed to just been accused of. We can suppose the Syrian military were killing and weakening the militants, and perhaps this alone was cause to demand a halt to attacks. But it's the alleged criminal targeting of homes and hospitals, etc. that's put forth as the reason. These allegations are never proven, usually dubious, and often disproven (a good example in a moment...) On the basis of crimes that might be entirely fictional, the “transitional government” could only exclude the current government ("Assad or any ruling group"). (Sputnik News)
So the terrorist-linked panel insisted on the regime's agreeing to suicide, basically, while green-lighting militant attacks on government-held areas and civilians. Then on April 21 when the government still insisted on fighting instead, and was still getting blamed for atrocities, the HNC really promised to walk out, calling talk pointless until the military situation changed - but NOT in the government's favor. (Reuters)
Six days later (27 April) came an allegation they didn't comment on (that I saw) but a great example of the kind: Al-Quds Hospital in Aleppo, allegedly bombed by Assad forces, killing 55 civilians. But the hospital was clearly not “reduced to rubble” as reported by MSF, and almost certainly not hit from the air at all (no damage to the roof or any external wall). Some internal explosions are seen, but these are provable from 4+ distinct bombs placed in different spots and triggered simultaneously to mimic an airstrike – an inside job. It did injure and kill some people, mainly in the emergency room (number there unclear, but 55 dead seems strangely extreme). And the most famous death of the “last pediatrician in Aleppo” Dr. Maaz likely didn't happen. Some clues suggest he coordinated the inside job, and a shady video edit might cover him leaving the ER prior to the blast there he might know just how to avoid. THIS is the kind of fake crimes people like Al-Zoubi eagerly pass on as true, never wanting to ask questions, perhaps knowing how fragile the illusions really are.
But it took that, everything before, and another month's worth of allegations before finally, on 29 May, the HNC started delivering on its promises. Chief negotiator Mohammed Allosuh resigned that post over the lack of progress in removing Assad or halting the allegations against him. About four months he pouted and threatened to run away from Geneva and the HNC before he finally did. Meanwhile, as DW reported, “the head of the main Syrian opposition delegation Asaad al-Zoubi also told the Saudi al Hadath TV channel that he too wanted to be relieved of his post, but did not confirm he had taken a similar step."(DW) Al-Zoubi was still called the leader of the HNC in articles as late as October 8, 2016. (Reuters) But the HNC delegation was led by a Naser al-Hariri when it participated in the new Geneva peace talks that commenced in February, 2017. (Wikipedia – HNC)
I didn't dig much past that, but it apparently didn't go well at Geneva IV in 2017 either. In February, the HNC rejected moves by the UN's Staffan de Mistura to re-exert control over delegate selection for the talks, and insisted the Kurdish PYD could not sit under its umbrella. (as they had non-Islamist George Sabra explain: "should the (PYD) want to take part, it has to do so on the regime side.”) (Rudaw) By mid-November, the HNC still existed when its founder, Riad Hijab, was among a dozen opposition figures who "resigned, apparently in protest of others being too willing to accept the continued rule of a man (Assad) they view as a discredited tyrant." (Sarah El Deeb and Philip Issa, Associated Press, 22 Nov.)
Who were these other people worth resigning over? They sound more correct. It could better be said the tyrants in Turkey and Saudi Arabia were discredited by Syria's continued defiance. In fact the tyrants were starting to acknowledge it themselves, even as some more zealous agents held out; the same AP article explains “Aides told local papers that Hijab, in his resignation Monday, was protesting Saudi Arabia giving up on calls for Assad to step down. Media reports suggested Saudi Arabia didn't invite HNC to the 2017 Riyadh meeting." A lack of invitation sounds like a lack of favor. In fact, Hijab's Wikipedia entry states “in 2017 he resigned as head of the (HNC) group following Saudi pressure.” (Wikipedia – Hijab)
It seems the HNC was dissolved after this, dropping off the radar. Nothing past 2017 is mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia entry. Even the visionary Saudis were "out of touch with reality" so the HNC's people retreated to their shrinking kingdom of truth. It might take longer than those four months, but the diehards seemed to maintain faith in the inevitable forced end of Assad's rule, even if the whole world procrastinated over it.
The approach taken by the High Negotiations Committee was never likely to advance a peaceful settlement. But they took that approach anyway, maybe because they planned to fail and blame the other side. It could be said - as Staffan De Mistura suspected early on - that they were never serious about the peace process. Instead, it seems they were engaged in an unstated and criminal process to pursue the Saudis' preferred military non-solution.
Since outright regime change was becoming unlikelier by 2016, it seems they adopted a policy of regime-bleed; delay the inevitable resolution so Syria can remain embattled, demonized, sanctioned and suffering until its will was broken, or as weakened and wounded as possible. The end goal isn't clear to me - perhaps as simple as having one less or one weaker ally for Iran in some big war against them planned down the road. Most likely it's a cluster of reasons mostly related to that regional struggle, including competing oil pipeline schemes and the like. But there can hardly be a morally straight reason for this kind of deceitful and murderous policy.
---
On to part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome. Stay civil and on or near-topic. If you're at all stumped about how to comment, please see this post.