by Thierry Meyssan
While negotiating with one hand in Geneva, with the other Washington is preparing a new military operation against Syria. Whatever the sequence of events, it will be sure to advance its pawns one way or another. War comes at no cost to Washington. It is the Syrians who are dying. To save time, it submitted to the Conference participants a Statement tabled by the “opposition”. Behind a conciliatory rhetoric, there are at least three traps that Thierry Meyssan breaks down for us.
The second round of the Geneva 2 Conference opened on a very different tone from the first one. U.S. ambassador Robert S. Ford is no longer heading the “opposition” delegation and it is unclear who is now responsible for Syria in Washington. In any case, the representatives of “opposition” arrived with a “Statement of Basic Principles”  designed to set Damascus up for the same trap Walid Muallem had laid for them during the first session: force him to answer his own ground. Damascus wanted to broach the fight against terrorism, but the “opposition” responded with a detailed description of the composition and mission of the Transitional Governing Body.
It was a particularly good move considering that, during the first session, Muallem had reached out to public opinion inside Syria, and sometimes in the Arab world, but never to that in the West. If he had wanted to target this audience, he should have started by focusing on international law before discussing the means to enforce it: the fight against terrorism. But first seeking to bolster the legitimacy of Damascus, he endeavored to expose the crimes perpetrated by the “opposition”-backed jihadists and the colonial ambitions of John Kerry.
Occupying the empty field, the United States dictated to the “opposition” a Statement which is based on the resolutions of the Security Council and the Geneva 1 Final Communiqué, that is to say on texts endorsed by all the states sponsoring the peace conference.
The Statement begins by detailing what the Body is supposed to be. Naturally, it will be neutral, inclusive – i.e. comprising all components of Syrian society-, peaceful – i.e. it would end the war-, and the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the country. Its function is to create an environment enabling the Syrian people to develop its own constitution and appoint its institutions.
The first problem with this Statement is that it contravenes the practice of the armed groups. While the National Coalition expresses itself in a perfectly democratic language, the groups who are fighting on the ground have continued to brutalize minorities and try to impose a Salafist organization of society. Granted, most of these groups do not recognize the authority of the Coalition, but its legitimacy hinges on their actions.
Moreover, everyone have been aware of the hypocrisy since the beginning of the crisis: the best speakers for democracy in Syria being the absolute rulers of the Gulf dictatorships.
The second problem with the Statement is the method to determine the Governing Body. Washington wants to impose it, as it did in many other countries. Hence it masterminded Geneva 2, as it did the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan: the great powers would negotiate among themselves and designate a Syrian Karzai. Damascus, however, continues to cite the Final Communiqué of Geneva 1, that “It is for the Syrian people to determine the future of the country.” Therefore, not only must the new constitution be approved by referendum, but the result of Geneva 2 may not be implemented unless it is ratified by President al-Assad. As it happens, he has committed himself to submitting it to a referendum.
Moreover, this remark reflects on the legitimacy of the “opposition” delegation. As noted by Sergey Lavrov in his opening statement at the conference, its current composition flies in the face of the Geneva I communiqué, which stipulates that “the peace talks should be open to all parties in Syria committed to a political settlement so that they will take an active part in the process and play their role.” However, the “opposition”delegation boils down only to the National Coalition, notwithstanding the fact that it has been repudiated by a majority of its members.
The third hitch is that the Statement affords Washington the possibility to organize a Serbian-style regime change, by orchestrating a “color revolution”. The Kosovo war ended in a cease-fire followed by elections in Serbia. Through a crafty psychological campaign, the CIA got a pro-American candidate elected. Then it had Slobodan Milošević arrested and tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity. Since at the end of two years, the Court found no evidence to support the charges, Milošević was murdered in his cell. Ultimately, the Serbs fought for nothing because today they have lost Kosovo and are governed by those who bombed their country to smithereens.
The Statement thus contains an astonishing contradiction: it calls for the deployment of the United Nations throughout the country from outset of the transition, but it excludes them from the process. Instead, it affirms that its supervision will be entrusted to “independent organizations of international civil society.” In Central and Eastern Europe, these organizations were called Freedom House, Open Society Foundation and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . The first is historically linked to both the United States and Israel , and the second is headed by business magnate and speculator George Soros, and serves the interests of both the United States and Israel, while the third is not an association, but a joint US-British-Australian body, created at the initiative of President Ronald Reagan to extend the work of the CIA after the scandals of the 70s. These organizations hand out billions of dollars everywhere they can to corrupt elites and to buy States.
In July 2011, Washington had sent an official Canadian delegation to Libya to propose a solution identical to the one applied in Serbia: a cease-fire followed by a transition period during which the “independent organizations of the international civil society” could deploy inside the country. Faced with Muammar el-Gaddafi’s refusal, NATO decided to enter by force.
In addition, the Statement stipulates that the Transitional Governing Body should create mechanisms to hold accountable “persons who have committed violations of human rights and international laws.” This phrase points directly to the arrest and transfer to The Hague of President al-Assad, during the transition period, for crimes against humanity. A procedure which should conclude, as for Milošević, by his death in his prison cell. There is no doubt that Washington’s candidates would win the elections once President al-Assad is eliminated from the game and the pseudo US associations deployed on the ground.
Therefore, much remains to be discussed in Geneva. Meanwhile, President Obama received the King of Jordan in California. The two men agreed on how the army currently being constituted in Jordan should again attack Syria. The deadline for Washington’s war plans is 30 September 2014. During the following seven months, the “opposition” should attempt to reverse the military balance of power and, at a minimum, take the south to install the seat of a provisional government. It is always better to have two irons in the fire.
TLB recommends you visit http://www.voltairenet.org for more great articles and pertinent information.
See original article here: http://www.voltairenet.org/article182232.html