Your trusted source

Press TV has conducted an interview with Ammar Waqqaf, a Syrian political activist from London, about Geneva talks on Syria.

- Mr. Waqqaf, your take as far as an agreement and, in your perspective, the main demands from each side.

- It’s a complicated issue. I think the opposition figures would want to show their supporters that they’ve actually achieved something that would justify them splitting from the main body of the opposition, either the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) itself or from the other opposition figures that were excluded from attending in Geneva or even from the world order militancy commanders on the ground, against all odds because there was a lot of pressure against them from America, from Britain. They needed to go.

So, they are going to say we are going to demand the top thing: we want, for example, President Assad to say he’s not going to go into elections, step down and what have you.

I think from the Syrian government’s perspective, they are at the moment realizing that the current opposition figures do not really represent much on the ground nor do they represent the opposition spectrum very much. They will probably want to speak to them and discuss and throw in and out some ideas.

However, their main concern would to be to start this Geneva process by securing, as soon as possible really, some sort of a regional deal, which would, you know, explain why the Syrians or the Syrian government has chosen to send a delegation that is mostly composed of foreign affairs officials. They clearly want to have a sort of regional setup as a good basis on which a domestic agreement could be reached later on.

- Your take with that same question [posed to the previous guest speaker, Mr. Millet], Mr. Waqqaf. What would be the problem if obviously certain conditions would have to be reached and abided by? Why would that be problematic in being able to setup elections along the way? -That if President Assad is not reelected then he is not reelected, then he is no longer president; and if he is, then he would remain as president. Why is that so problematic?

- It is problematic because the opposition believes and the West in general believes that President Assad has enough popularity on the ground to stand against any possible candidate that the opposition could actually provide. This is the issue.

- You’re saying the issue then would be – because if the election was to be held - that President Assad would win, and this is what the West and the supporters of the opposition do not want?

- Yes. They would want now to secure the removal of President Assad before any forthcoming election because they know that with disregard to the popularity that President Assad already has, which some people can dispute - I actually think he would easily win – the opposition itself in relative terms to President Assad’s popularity will not be able to provide this key figure who would stand against or face to face with President Assad.

Let’s take the current position at the moment as an indicator. President Assad sits on top of a very still-viable organization called the Syrian Arab Republic. If he issues an order, this order would simply be followed by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.

If, for example, his likely counterparts say the most widely recognized body of the opposition, the Syrian National Council, Mr. Ahmad al-Jarba, issues a certain decree or a certain order, even the coalition members won’t listen to him let alone people on the ground.

President Assad isn’t really rivaled. The safest policy is to try and remove him, to try to pressurize the situation and threaten prolonging this conflict for as long as possible against the Syrian government so that President Assad would step down and afterwards, you know, they feel that any candidate that the opposition might field might have a much better chance.

- You’re nodding your head [at the previous guest speaker’s remarks]. I want to get your perspective on what our guest has said. Also a concern, I think, for the Syrian government at this point in time, as I was talking about the splintered opposition, now that they are negotiating what guarantees do they have that all of these groups will basically abide by this type of agreement? There are unbelievable things that have been committed, crimes in that country. What guarantees do they have that these people can even abide by any type of agreement?

- Well, let me first take the argument that Mr. Millet has put forward a little bit further. I think I know where he’s coming from. He’s really saying that from a perception or from a principle of accountability, President Assad should really probably step down, a lot has happened during his tenure and what have you.

I can assure, Mr. Millet, that we as Syrian citizens are aware that a lot has happened during President Assad’s tenure. But our main concern at the moment is who is the person who is best capable of leading this country forward in terms of, you know, being able to exert power, exert command amongst the executive branch of the government?

If we are going to take, for example, President Assad out, say we don’t vote for him, and then we come up with someone who is a puppet of Saudi Arabia or a puppet of Turkey or even cannot control 10 men on the ground, will we have served Syria best? I don’t think we will have.

I think we are in a very special situation that our main concern is to provide Syrian people with the best vision forward as possible.

Now, if President Assad is universally acknowledged by more than 50 percent of the Syrian population to be that person to provide this strong leadership, I think we’re going to have to go with that. But again, that’s for the Syrians to decide.

Now going back to your question about who can guarantee, I think no one. Not only the opposition figures we have now are but a very small faction of the opposition spectrum - those people who are in Geneva at the moment - but there’s a much bigger problem, that the factions on the ground and the commanders on the ground who control a lot of what’s happening in terms of resources, in terms of the livelihood of the people, in terms of pressurizing them or allowing them to live and what have you, those people do not recognize the entire political process.

So, even if the Syrian government delegation reaches a sort of agreement under the auspices of the UN and Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi with this current opposition delegation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that anyone would listen to them.

I think they tried to say, ‘ok, let’s start with Homs’, because I think they believe they have some sort of leverage in Homs where someone over there on the ground might say, ‘ok, we’re going to listen to you’.

But I was on a different program like an hour ago and we had opinions from ordinary people in the areas that are controlled by the opposition and every one of them is really disowning this process entirely, let alone the delegation.

No one trusts them. It will be very hard to find a partner from the Syrian government’s point of view to make a deal with.

- Why is their main demand that President Assad step down? Why wouldn’t their main demand be the end of terrorism, ensuring security and the welfare of the Syrian people? In your perspective, why do you think that’s the main demand?

- Simply speaking, they want to enforce in Geneva II what they couldn’t enforce in Geneva I. Basically, they want to tell their people that they’ve achieved something, that is really unachievable because President Assad and his government really have enough support on the ground to keep it running for the past three years. And I think that’s not waning at all. In fact, I would argue that their popularity is increasing with all the thumbling that we see on the other side.