APPROACHING DAMASCUS

Just as expected, world leaders' discussions of the crisis in Syria at the G8 summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland [Ulster] did not result in any significant rapprochement among the parties and only confirmed that the attitudes of the leading global powers to this Middle Eastern country, which has been consumed by civil war for more than two years now. 

The stands taken by the Western powers and Russia were at odds, as was to be expected. Russia, which is continuing to stick to its original approach in dealing with the Syrian problem, was the only country at Lough Erne to support the legitimacy of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime. The West is in favour of a political settlement in Syria which excludes al-Assad himself. 

In spite of the differences between Russia and the countries of the West, a communiqu? on Syria was signed by all the G8 members, but did not even contain proposals regarding the fate of the Syrian president. Restricting themselves to general desires to support a future Syrian government embracing all parties, the G8 countries demanded of the clamouring parties that they should expel from the country organisations and rebels linked to the Al-Qaeda international terrorist network. They committed themselves to providing approximately $1.5bn in humanitarian aid to the population of Syria, as well as condemning the use of chemical weapons in the country.

The issue of chemical weapons has moreover become a major factor in the pressure being exerted on Syria from the outside. The White House has categorically accused the Bashar al-Assad regime of using chemical weapons against the opposition forces, causing 100-150 casualties. Benjamin Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser (for strategic communication), has stressed that, according to data thoroughly investigated by the American intelligence service, the al-Assad regime used the nerve gas sarin against the opposition numerous times last year in small quantities. The Russians, on the other hand, let it be known on an official level that it regards the American accusations as invented for the purpose of overthrowing the al-Assad government. Russia recalled the US overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 10 years ago based on an incorrect accusation that he possessed weapons of mass destruction, which were never confirmed in spite of thorough searches. 

But the information that al-Assad's regime is using chemical weapons was sufficient for President Barak Obama to take the decision to provide military support to the Syrian opposition. Moscow's view on this is quite the opposite. During the G8 summit Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that any decision on supplying arms to the Syrian opposition based on unconfirmed accusations that Damascus was using chemical weapons would only destabilise the situation even further. Putin mentioned this issue at the talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron in London before the summit. Putin said that it was unlikely to be worth supporting people who not only killed their enemies, but also cut open their bodies and devoured their internal organs. He asked whether such people should be supported, whether they should be supplied with weapons. He said that, if this were case, such actions were unlikely to be in tune with the humanitarian values preached in Europe for hundreds of years. 

In its turn, the West has been extremely critical of the possible deliveries of Russian S-300 anti-missile systems to Syria. The Kremlin is asserting that Russian-Syrian military co-operation is being conducted completely within the norms of international law. Nevertheless, there has not yet been any official confirmation that Damascus has taken delivery of S-300s. Bashar al-Assad himself recently stated that these anti-missile complexes were being acquired. The Russian Foreign Ministry, however, denied this, stating that the existing contract between Moscow and Damascus had been frozen for the moment. The impression is created that for Russia the S-300 deliveries to Syria are a kind of bargaining chip in its dialogue with the West. The Kremlin is letting it be understood that it would definitely supply the Syrian regime with the latest anti-missile complexes if the USA and its allies were to start delivering arms to the Syrian opposition. Not to mention the West's willingness to establish a no-fly zone, just like the one set up during the military operation to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.

In supporting the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria aimed at preventing the Syrian army from carrying out air strikes on the Syrian opposition, the USA is planning to install Patriot anti-aircraft batteries in Jordan, as well as using fighter jets with air-to-air missile capability. The Americans are moreover considering using their naval ships in the Mediterranean and Red Seas to secure the no-fly zone over Syria.

It is obvious that the pursuit of this plan to establish a no-fly zone over Syria is largely the reason for the USA's vehement opposition to the proposed deliveries of Russian S-300s to official Damascus. Military experts think that, in the event of the al-Assad regime possessing the Russian anti-missile complexes, for Washington the cost of victory over that regime would be too high - as many as 20 fighter jets. To the Barak Obama administration, which is striving to implement its foreign policy with as little bloodshed as possible, such a toll would be regarded as largely unjustified.

Once again, in contrast to the American stand, the Russians assert that they will not permit a no-fly zone to be established over Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated that any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone would be directly in violation of international law. The official Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Aleksandr Lukashevich, stressed for his part: "We have actually seen from what happened to Libya how a no-fly zone is enforced and these decisions implemented. We don't want a replay of this in the Syrian conflict. I don't think that we will permit such a scenario to recur in principle." Only time will tell whether Russia has sufficient determination to hold out against the Syria-related pressure being exerted by the West.

For the moment the main focus is on an international conference on Syria envisaged in the accords between the USA and Russia. Considerable contradictions exist in the approaches of both the interested foreign forces with regard to Syria's problems, first and foremost between Washington and Moscow, as well as between those involved internally in the Syrian conflict. Naturally, these make the likelihood of an American-Russian initiative considerably less. Nevertheless the likelihood of a conference being held has been heightened in the light of the discussion on the Syrian issue at the summit in Lough Erne, which has led to the adoption of a joint communiqu?. The specific time frame for holding an international conference on Syria can be fixed at the planned tripartite meeting in Geneva within the Russia-USA-UN format on 25 June.