Dr. Alexey BORISOV
Secretary General
UN Association of Russia
UNESCO Chairholder
MGIMO-University
Helsinki, August 24, 2012
Since March 2011 up to the present moment Syria has been suffering confrontation of the ruling power and the opposition. During this period lots of events have happened in Syria as well as in the whole world. To be more specific, in the Security Council of the UN, there have been continuous debates throughout the entire history of the conflict between
Western and a number of Arab countries on one side and Russia and
China on the other. Herewith, the former strive for the resignation of the president Bashar Asad thinking that will stop violence. The latter beware that external interference in Syria and the forfeit of national identity will lead to spreading the conflict. The current international contradictions are seriously hindering elaboration the means of regulation the conflict as unfortunately, not all the countries are ruled by impartiality in developing ways of settling the existing in Syria situation.
From the historical viewpoint, Syria used to be one of the most advanced Arab countries, which used to boast quite a high degree of the freedom for its citizens.
Now, however, one could picture a most interesting situation: countries with absolute monarchy, such as Qatar and others, are fervently standing for “democratization” of Syria. The question is, what is the logic of their interference in a foreign internal conflict aiming at promoting the regimes which they themselves do not support?
At present we are witnessing the fact that the Syrian opposition is getting a powerful backing from outside. Regretfully, the countries advocating the opposition do not bring to notice that their activities not only hinder achieving peace in Syria but also violate Article 2 of the
United Nations Charter.

Let us turn our attention to the facts without drawing any conclusions.
To begin with, look at the activities of the Arab League. As soon as a relatively objective report was made and Syrian government officials expressed their consent to raising the mission, it was soon folded up without explaining the reason. Next goes the plan of Kofi Annan. The situation practically repeated itself: as soon as Syrian authorities started to fulfill this plan, which even had some positive effects, when there appeared pessimistic notes in favor of failure of the plan and K. Annan’s mission. The result followed immediately, then came new outbreaks of aggression and violence. Next was the decision on sending to Syria the
UN observers. But soon after they were rolled in, we again heard that this mission was not successful either. Then, one has to mention the meeting in Geneva. On achieving consensus, which was further fixed in a communique, the official Damascus agreed to work on the basis of the mentioned agreements. B. Asad appointed an official negotiator with the opposition. Shortly, some officials started to claim that the Geneva agreements can only be accomplished in case of resignation B. Asad and that the UN Security Council has to forward an ultimatum on Chapter
VII of the UN Charter concerning Syria, which in fact means rejecting the Geneva agreements. Two days after the Geneva conference, in
Istanbul there was a meeting with the Syrian opposition which passed a document which did not even contain a hint on the Geneva communique. Instead, the document demanded the resignation of
B.Asad and passing the resolution on Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It should be said that some Western politicians have repeatedly come out with statements concerning total communicational and economic blockade of the official Damascus, of which the conclusion should be drawn that they do not agree to the dialogue with the Syrian regime, which in its turn means the call to the civil war and nonfulfillment of the
Geneva agreements. We think that the present stand of the West is leading to a situation similar to the one in Libya: there is complete indifference towards the complexity of the political situation, there is no stability and what is more, there is place for active terroristic activities.
Analyzing the above mentioned facts one can come to a distressing conclusion. As soon as there appears a small clearance in the resolution to the Syrian problem, there appear certain complaints on the part of some representatives of the global community. However, attention should be paid on the fact that further developing conflicts within the

country could be followed by processes which will affect absolutely negatively the situation within the neighboring territories, which in its turn may result in restructuring of both the regional and the world safety.
As a result we may lose control over the Syrian and Israeli border. Also, there is a threat that the situation in Lebanon and other countries of the region may turn to the worse, and the most critical consequence might be the exacerbation of the contradictions within the Islamic world.
We are all aware of the entanglement of the religious and ethnic constitution of the Syrian population. Apart from that, the part which still relies on B.Asad regime to protect their rights is also part of the
Syrian people. It is for this reason that the Russian part keeps outlining that before the format of the future Syrian government is agreed upon, it is absolutely necessary to come to an agreement on strong guarantees concerning maintenance the rights of religious, ethnic and other minorities. It is only after that all other items could be discussed. It is the most essential question. Moreover, since the beginning of the conflict,
Russia has been warning against inadmissibility of the superficial attitude toward such complicated problem as Islamic contradictions, which grew up in Syria inter alia. It is worrying that this antagonism may get even worse and it may result in extremely sad after-effects.
With reference to these, we are advocating giving a hand to all the
Muslims in executing the provisions of the Amman Declaration, which was approved in 2005 by the conference of major Islamic scholars under the chairmanship of the Jordan king Abdalla II. It says, “If you are a
Muslim no matter whether you are a Sunni, a Shiah or else; if you believe in Allah, you should act in such a way that your brothers are not your enemies”. (This refers not only to Islam.) Anyway, we are in favor of civilized dialogue and we closely cooperate with Arabic and other
Islamic countries promoting the moral values of the international relationships.
Back to Syria, attention should be directed to the statement declaring the position of the new National Convocation of Syria Abdelbaset Seid, which was articulated at the meeting with the head of the Ministry of
International Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov. The viewpoint is that Syria is suffering a revolution. Then, it is not clear how the UN is connected with it. The Security Council is not concerned with

revolutions. They have to decide whether they continue solving problems by means of revolutions with international institutions not interfering the internal affairs, or listen to the means suggested by the global community and stop bloodletting.
At present, it is evident that some countries seriously prevent achieving peace in Syria so soon. They are doing this by supporting the opposition, which contradicts the purpose of protection the peaceful population. It seems that this is all done to achieve the mercenary interests in a huge regional geopolitical game. In this case, you cannot help taking into account Iran as far as many of the Western and Middle East countries are concerned with the neutralization of Iranian viewpoint.
Quite recently, the United States have again accused Russia of the slowdown in the settlement of the Syrian conflict. They have declared that helping the opposition, they are trying to draw near the day when
B.Asad will abandon his post thus ceasing outrage in the country.
Meanwhile, B.Asad is not going to discard the duty of the head of Syria.
This is not because the Russian part is protecting him, but because behind him is a considerable part of the country population. In return, for us it does not make a big difference who will be in power in Syria.
The important thing is this power is elected by the Syrian people freely, without any pressure from outside. All the rest is up to the Syrian people. We will accept any alternative. It should be also taken into account that Russia declaiming against both the regime and the opposition for the violations which are on their own head.
Speaking about the statements made by the US, we think that of primary importance is striving for the cooperation in achieving consensus between the UN participating countries on the Syrian conflict, not wasting time on finding out the contributors to the slowdown in settling the conflict. For the present moment the latter is a mere waste of time. It should also be reminded that one of the major decisions achieved in the framework of the Geneva Conference on Syria lies in in ceasing outrage both on the part of the government forces and the opposition. The
Russian party is honestly adhering to the Geneva agreement on cooperation with Damascus and with the opposition. However, we are facing the disregard on the part of our Western and a number or regional colleagues, who, by the way, have a considerable influence on the

activities of the oppositional groups. Now our Western partners are violating the undertaken obligations. This is manifested in the claim on the Syrian government to unilaterally cease military actions and to withdraw armed people and armament from cities. Only upon fulfilling these stipulations will they apply with request to the opposition asking to cease military actions. Let us consider this situation theoretically and admit that all the forces of the regime were withdrawn from Syrian cities and all the claims of the West were unleashed. Is there anyone who relies on the ambitiousness of the opposition? It is goes without saying that it will not lay down arms. Moreover, it will take control over the cities in the same way as it happened last fall when it attempted to accomplish the League of Arab States’ plan. In the context of any military operation, this is an absolutely unrealistic approach, which only testifies that the main purpose is regime change-over contrary to the principles of the UN regulations. Consequently, this is not the case of defending the peaceful population.
Our major goal is for Syria to enjoy peace and for the Syrian population to live peacefully. B.Asad regime has definitely made quite a lot of mistakes. However, one of the main reasons of conflict aggravation is obviously the fact that the regime opposition members, who from the very beginning vigorously requested removal of B.Asad from power, failed to consider the interests of the part of the Syrian population
(which is by the way, the majority of the population) which recognized and are still recognizing him as a warrantor of their rights and of their safety. By the bye, one should turn attention to the interview with
B.Asad published in Turkish newspaper “Djumkhuriet” in which he directly claimed his viewpoint which is confined in his willingness to abandon his position in case the people refuse to back him up at the election.
As for the Russian Federation, we think that the fate of the leader of any state should be determined by its people in accordance with the regulations of the local legislation. It is also worth saying that we have always been against using violence as means of displacement of the ruling regime, particularly in relation to peaceful population. We are definitely happy about the Arab people who are striving for a better life.
Moreover, we are even ready to support them in doing that. But we are

only in favor of peaceful implementation of the urgent changes in the
Middle East.
We would like to point out that Russia has traditionally been adhering to a quite plain policy in settling any conflicts. It involves the need for cooperative approaches and cooperative actions for implementing these approaches into life. That sort of scenario for the actions was developed by the UN Security Council and we followed it when we forwarded the
UN observers mission to Syria and when in Geneva we elaborated this plan considering all its aspects. We are not being hammy making up unrealizable initiatives like flight free zones. We are practical and realistic trying to puzzle out the essence of the conflict. In our opinion, this is only possible on the ground of collaboration and cooperation.
Such a foundation has been created in Geneva and our initiative lies in achieving fulfillment of the Geneva agreements.
Regretfully, the process of stabilization of the situation in Syria is moving with great difficulties. We were all shocked at the episodes of outrage against peaceful citizens including the tragedy in the settlement of Khulah and the later slaughter in Kham. It is essential to find out who are responsible for the massacre against defenseless people in peaceful settlements and to punish them as severely as possible. No-one is entitled to assume the part of an arbitrator and to take advantage of similar tragedies so as to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Only abandoning such attempts will allow to stop violence in Syria.
In addition to the abovementioned, for us it is vitally important that the
Syrian opposition focused on peaceful settlement of the political process which would be based on generally recognized international judicial principles. We regret to say that the participants of the conference held in Cairo in July 2-3 of the current year, failed to achieve relevant decisions. It goes without saying that such-like happenings tangle the process of settlement. But we still hope that this is a temporary occurrence and that in a while all the members of the Action Group will carry on their activities aimed at bringing the Syrian opposition to more constructive methods of regulating the conflict.
As far as our major goal is elimination violence, this is an issue of primary importance, which means that we first of all we have to struggle

for ceasing fire and to facilitate the open dialogue between the Syrian officials and the opposition so as the Syrians could develop the formula for peaceful settlement of the conflict on their own. We have been calling for this from the very beginning of the Syrian disturbances. It was initially clear that to call for the resignation of B.Asad against the will of a considerable part of the Syrian society continuing to strive for the current regime means to force Syria into a long civil war. However, we think that the role of the foreign players should lie in helping the
Syrians to restructure the Syrian political system by means of evolutionary hence peaceful methods. It is also important to enable working out and fulfillment of the conflict resolution agreements without taking either of the confronting parties. To do this, it is required to follow resolutions 2042 and 2043 of the UN Security Council.
It is substantial that all the external players helped the confronting parties come to the negotiating table. As for the question of the ways for the peaceful settlement, foreign actors have to put pressure upon Syrian parties they have influence on. Important: pressure has to be put upon all the Syrian groupings, notably in the following way: they should cease bloodletting while we in return will ensure control over the situation making sure none of the sides violate their obligations. It would be worth reminding that the Syrian government has repeatedly appointed their negotiators while the opposition failed to do that.
We have called the governing body of the Syrian National Board and other members of the opposition for urgent appointment their representatives at negotiations, which has been talked about in the widely supported
Geneva agreement. These negotiations should specify the body of the
“transitional governing body” which will be deemed to arrange the elections and work out the constitution. For the present moment, the opposition has not yet introduced the candidate, but we hope that the foreign actors influence will soon result in negotiators coming up. We also hope that in the meantime measures will be taken to simultaneously cease fire in fixed tight deadlines. Also, in relation to the appointment of a new UN representative in Syria Lakhdarh Brakhimi, we are not yet aware if he is going to pursue the same policy as Kofi Annan and whether his plan will be realized. Anyway, we all sincerely hope that such experienced politician and diplomat as Lakhdarh Brakhimi will cope with regulating the conflict and that he will come up with a wise solution to the current problem.

In addition, we would like to turn to the fact that the Security Council has approved of the key approach of the Russian Federation in relation to the prolongation of the UN mission in Syria, which seems to be essential for the present critical situation in the country. In return, we will continue to make efforts aimed at integrating foreign actors to the advantage of the political regulation, which must be achieved on the basis of international legislation alongside with observing the UN
Charter and without interference into internal affairs of the sovereign state.
In conclusion, it is worth saying that we all should realize that at the present moment some foreign actors thinking about their momentary interest, forget about tomorrow thus putting at threat the future of the ins and outs of international legislation.