Leader in popular will: Syrian government still stick to inaction to take firm decision in talks  

Alaa Arafat said during an interview with Hawar news agency ANHA that they do not believe that the regional parties prevent the government from seriously engaging in the solution.

The dialogue is as follows:

Your party signed a memorandum of understanding with the Syrian Democratic Council on the political solution in Syria, where did this memorandum reach, and was it presented, as stated in the press conference, to the UN envoy or the Damascus government, and what were the reactions?

The memorandum that was signed, and as we have said on many occasions, is a first step that we work to build on, and to achieve its stated goals, and this will take its necessary time, and we are working to be the shortest possible, yes, it is true that it was delivered to the United Nations envoy, and according to our information it was handed over to the government Also, we have not yet seen a public reaction from the UN envoy, and with regard to the government, the indirect position appeared on the words of the Syrian Foreign Minister during the last joint press conference with Mr. Lavrov.

The government of Damascus, according to Walid al-Muallem, and during a press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, rejected the memorandum of understanding between the popular will and SDC, describing it as unconstitutional, how do you assess that?

We believe that any Syrian party serious about reaching a political solution should not consider that the memorandum of understanding is directed against it, but rather see it as it really is, that is, as an important qualitative addition within the general national work aimed at preserving Syria's unity and removing it from its crisis through a political solution.

The Damascus government still refuses to engage in any serious dialogue. Is it still following the same mentality, or are there regional parties preventing it, and what is the result of that on the country?

In terms of form, it cannot be said that the Syrian government rejects dialogue, because it always affirms that it is with dialogue, but in terms of practice, we have not yet seen a serious and responsible engagement in the vocabulary of the political solution, whether with regard to the Constitutional Committee or elsewhere, and we do not believe The regional parties prevent the government from seriously engaging in the solution, perhaps there are those who promote this kind of ideas to escape responsibility, or to entrap certain regional and international parties, but the truth is that the ability of the Syrian parties in general, and the government in particular, to facilitate the solution is a very high capacity. If there is political will for that.

Is Russia unable, in your opinion, to impose its vision on Damascus?

What we know from the long concrete experience of the Russian policy towards Syria and the direction of the Syrian regime is that it does not work with the logic of imposition, and this relates primarily to the new paradigm that both Russia and China offer for international relations within the framework of the conflict with the Western model, which still operates with the same traditional colonial mentality. And, with new tools ... Therefore, Russia is not required to impose anything by force, but rather by persuasion, in order to enable the Syrians to fully implement Resolution 2,254, that is, in essence, having their right to self-determination for themselves.

The government of Damascus is not serious about dialogue, and Turkey’s opposition is dependent on the latter’s decision, and the Autonomous Administration is absent. Do you have hopes for achieving something through the Geneva, Astana and other meetings, and what is the solution in your opinion?

We always repeat that there are extremists in the various Syrian parties who have no interest in the solution, and they are doing everything they can to prevent it, but those todays are in a weaker state, and tomorrow they will be weaker, because the most important element of their strength is relying on Western and American influence in particular, whether directly and publicly, or in form. Indirect and secretive, because the interest of the United States is condensed by the words of the American envoy: "Turning Syria into a quagmire", which means postponing the solution to the maximum possible period of time, and this is in the interest of the militants who benefit from the continuation of the disaster and those who profit from it, or who fear change and fear from the opinion of the Syrian people about them.

With the accelerating American retreat and the high chances of a complete withdrawal, the hard-liners' strength and their ability to delay the solution has become weaker ... and therefore the Geneva and Astana meetings themselves, and the 2,254 track as a whole, will enter a new state in the next stage, the state of actual implementation ... and everything that happened so far it is only preparations.

T/S

ANHA