Syrian crisis under dominance countries 

The government of Damascus continues to reject Syrian calls for a Syrian dialogue to resolve the country's crisis and confront the ambitions of external forces, including calls for a Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria for dialogue.

Motives for the intransigence of the Damascus government

 The Syrian opponent politician, Firas Qassas, points out that what drives intransigence in refusing dialogue is "impermissible to the regime's acceptance of any completely structural dialogue. It is its embodied nature rather than the institution, its form of authority, and its relationship with the public, which are based on singularity and appropriation, its perception of itself and its position in Syria as its owner and its potential, and then how it reaches power by inheriting and maintaining a regime that has acquired it by force through non-border methods of violence and war."

"How can a political system believe in dialogue mechanisms so long as it recognizes only its class, interests, and ideological plan as political determinants of the country?" How can he believe in dialogue when he does not recognize any other political party and is allowed to exist only for the purposes of his tyranny and his presence in power?"

Future attempts to enter the Democratic Autonomous Administration into dialogue with the government of Damascus.

The government of Damascus, which pursues a purely military security mentality in dealing with the Syrians, is excluded by the fact that, since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the country has been destroyed in a dialogue with the autonomous administration or any other Syrian party, in order to respond to the will of the people and the country's components for freedom, pluralism, and decentralization of democracy. This should not be relied upon in order to resolve the Syrian crisis.

Regarding the fate of the Syrian crisis in the face of the escalation of crises in the Middle East and the extent to which the resolution of the crisis in Syria can resolve the issues of the Middle East, al-Qassas pointed out that "the crises in the Middle East have been complex and deep-rooted in the region since the beginning of the emergence of a modern state in the region and because of the political and international environment in which that state has emerged, and perhaps even more deeply, because of the knowledge structure of character prevailing in the Middle East."

Signs of a conflict of dominance at the expense of the Syrians.

 Among other things, the Syrian opponent also shows what is being said about the path towards the rapprochement of the Turkish occupying state and the government of Damascus. Despite the promotion of differences, Damascus, during its policy on the ground, particularly by attacking autonomous administration areas, responds to Turkey's endeavours, abandoning its previous terms on the need for Turkey to withdraw from Syrian territory, as the observers see it.

In the view of the Head of the Party of Modernity and Democracy of Syria, Firas Qassas, the resolution of the Syrian crisis is not linked to the rapprochement of the two regimes. On the contrary, both parties are betting on the return of Syria to the environment that triggered the crisis, both of which are betting on the interests of its regime and on the consolidation of its presence under the authority of each country. They are not interested in bringing the Syrian situation to an effective end with its essential link to the fulfilment of the Syrian people's will to freedom, dignity, and efficiency.

Regarding the nature of the two regimes (Damascus and Ankara) and the efforts of rapprochement, he said: "Turkey, which occupies Syrian territory and intervenes in Syrian affairs from a narrow angle, is governed by a complex established at its political meeting, a complex that has emerged and taken hold since Turkey was founded as the legacy of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War following the defeat and subsequent collapse of the latter."

According to Firas Qassas: "The Syrian regime has not refused to normalize with the Turkish regime in the past for reasons of high principle, since the latter is a regime that occupies part of Syrian territory and its national dimensions, but rather because it is wrestling with the Turkish regime over domination.

The Head of the Party of Modernity and Democracy of Syria pointed out: "There is no fundamental difference that one can make between the two presidents of the regime in Syria and Turkey, both of whom see that they have a historic role in their region and that their personal destiny is the fate of their country, and no space separates their respective awareness between the state and each of them, each of which attempts to embody power in its own person, both tyrant and fascist, in accordance with the constitutional and legal environment and the distribution of positions of power in their respective countries, their possession, and their relationship with them."

"The conflict is personal over domination among dictators."

 Firas Qassas asserted that: "The normalization of the two regimes will take place between the two regimes and that the Syrian regime's failure at the previous stage to pursue normal relations with the Turkish regime was aimed at weakening the latter before the presidential election, and its desire to make the President of the Turkish regime outside the power equation in his country, all in the context of the personal conflict over domination between dictators."

The Syrian opponent believes that "in contrast to the pressure being exerted by Russia on the Syrian regime for such a rapprochement, the regime has an additional and emerging interest in normalization with Erdogan, an interest in re-engineering its external relations in such a way as to allow it to regain power and influence within Syria from Iran's intervention in particular and its militia in the short term, and, of course, to reinforce the Syrian regime externally, which strengthens it and greatly reflects its ability to regain its internal weight and authority vis-à-vis all those who are competing with it."

He explained: "The Syrian regime wants to return to Syria before15 March 2011, so that its sovereignty over the country will be restored to what it was on that date. Turkey, in turn, is not reluctant to do so. Perhaps Turkey is even more keen to return to the situation in Syria before the revolution in North and East Syria, which raised the principles of democracy, pluralism, decentralization, and recognition of the other. It is extremely anxious to return to history before the refugee stage, the effects of which are suffering and whose consequences are to be eliminated in the Turkish interior."

"The Turkish regime has proven to have no principles."

 Fires Qassas asserted that the Turkish regime had proved to be without principles, and that it was ready to do everything and anything as long as it required, not only in the interests of Turkey, but only in the interest of its remaining in power, and said: "It is therefore my return and my bet on the deepening of the Syrian crisis that normalization between the two regimes can carry our country."

As to the normal situation between the two countries, the retribution believes that: "no one can speak of a natural situation in which the two countries are united except by a change in their classes of power. How can two states under two regimes that are concerned only with their own interests achieve the interests of their respective peoples while outside their basic accounts and contrary to the common interests of their countries? Their agreement, which will strengthen them will naturally be against the interests of their respective countries, because they will be better able to hold their hands on each other, will help each other in a controversial way, while their differences and the situation will trigger a conflict from which both countries will lose their hands."

In the view of the Head of the Party of Modernity and Democracy of Syria, Firas Qassas, whether these regimes agree or disagree, in both cases their presence on the wall of power in their respective countries will always and inevitably cause the loss of the peoples of the two countries.

T/ Satt.

ANHA