PEACE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE MISSED

Attempts are being made to reach a peace settlement against the backdrop of the escalating conflict in Syria. Particular hopes are being pinned on the Russian-US accord to hold an international conference aimed at achieving a settlement in Syria.

In principle, the officials in Damascus have agreed to take part in a conference promoting a settlement in Syria. This conference is to be held in keeping with the accords reached during the recent visit to Russia by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Moscow regards the holding of a conference to be "a real opportunity to stop the bloodshed and suffering of the Syrian people and ensure a peaceful democratic future for Syria". The Syrian opposition has, however, refused to take a decision on attending the conference unless certain preliminary conditions are met. It has expressed its willingness to send its representatives to the conference on  condition that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad steps down. So, the opportunity to implement the Russo-American accords might actually be missed. 

The Syrian conflict is moreover gradually spreading throughout the region. The Lebanese capital Beirut was attacked following the recent Israel air strikes on the Damascus suburbs. Furthermore, the headquarters of the radical Shia movement Hezbollah, whose leader recently announced that his organisation was rendering military aid to Bashar al-Assad, is located not far away from the area targeted in the air strikes. This provided every reason for asserting that the attack on Beirut was perpetrated by those opposed to Hezbollah. 

The fact that fighting is continuing in the town of Qusair (al-Qusayr) near the Lebanese border in southern Syria at the present time needs to be taken into consideration. More-over, according to the reports coming in, the Syrian army is enjoying some success with the help of Hezbollah. These incidents have exacerbated the situation in Lebanon itself, provoking confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis (the latter support the Syrian opposition). So, the Lebanese town of Tripoli has become the arena for bloody, armed clashes. The town's population is mainly Sunni with an Alawite minority.

The head of the League of Arab States, Nabil al-Arabi, has appealed to the Hezbollah movement to end its involvement in the civil war in Syria. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also expressed concern over Hezbollah's increasing involvement in the fighting in Syria. Calling for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the countries in the region to be respected, he appealed to all the Lebanese leaders not to allow their own country to be drawn into the conflict in Syria, where more than 70,000 people have perished, according to UN figures. The UN Human Rights Council has adopted a decision condemning "the use of foreign mercenaries by the Syrian regime". There are however grounds for saying that international extremist and terrorist groupings, which are fighting for the Syrian opposition, are intervening in the conflict to a much greater extent than Hezbollah is. It is no secret that the initiative in the Syrian opposition camp belongs to the Jabhat al-Nusra grouping in particular, which is connected with the Al-Qaeda international terrorist network. The concept of "national sovereignty and the territorial integrity" mentioned by Ban Ki-moon, does not mean anything at all to forces like this. But this does not prevent the centres of power in the West from proclaiming the Bashar al-Assad government to be "lawless", from setting about implementing plans to deliver direct and official military aid to the Syrian opposition ( for a long time now the latter have been receiving aid funded by the Western centres of power abroad).

The US Congress is known to be drafting the appropriate legislation. The European Union (EU) has also set about paving the way for rendering legal military aid to the Syrian opposition. The EU foreign ministers have agreed to lift the embargo on arms deliveries to the armed groupings of the Syrian opposition. True, this issue has been the source of serious disagreements among the EU member-states. Unlike Great Britain and France which are urging the lifting of the embargo on arms deliveries to the Syrian rebels as soon as possible, Germany makes no secret of its sceptical attitude towards future military support for al-Assad's opponents. Austria, Belgium, and Romania have taken a hard-line stand on the embargo. As a result, no definite steps have been outlined in the Brussels communique of EU foreign ministers, which the European Union is intending to adopt in order to sidestep the arms embargo.

Catherine Ashton, the Union's high representative for foreign affairs, has had to state that at the present stage, EU members states will not proceed with the delivery of military equipment to Syria. But she noted at the same time that the EU Foreign Affairs Council will review its stand on 1 August 2013. The EU leadership is thereby recognising that it will inevitably have to adopt a specific decision in the very near future on starting direct and official arms deliveries to the Syrian opposition.

Furthermore, Great Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague generally admitted that since the EU had not managed to reach an agreement on this issue, each the EU countries would would have the flexibility to decide independently whether to supply arms to Syria or not. The British foreign minister was quite clear in his reference to the recurring theme of the European decision taken in Brussels, when he said that they had put an end to the embargo on arms deliveries to the Syrian opposition.

Russia condemned the EU's decision. It made it quite clear that while the way was being paved to implement the Russo-American initiative regarding a peace conference on Syria, it was inappropriate to take actions that could push the sides in the internal Syrian conflict into armed confrontation rather than negotiations and dialogue. At the same time, one of the much discussed topics with regard to the civil war in Syria was Russia's intention to deliver S-300 air defence systems to the authorities in Damascus. The agreement on supplying four sets of  S-300 air defence systems to Syria had been signed back in 2010. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently announced that Moscow is not planning to supply new batches of arms to Syria, but intends to honour agreements already in place.

Israel is keeping track of the Russo-Syrian arms deals. During his recent visit to Moscow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked Russian President Vladimir Putin out of the idea of delivering S-300s to Syria. But, to all appearances, the Kremlin does not intend to break off its contract with Damascus. The statement by Israel's official representatives point to this fact when it states that "no agreement was reached between Putin and Netanyahu".

The threat of Syria acquiring one of the most advanced air defence systems in world is of serious concern to Israel, which is obviously keeping a close eye on any reinforcement of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz has noted that the operational range of the S-300 is approximately 200 km, which would allow Syria to attack aircraft deep inside Israel.

Moreover, it is quite obvious that Russia's striving to abide by the commitments in its contract with Syria is linked with the Jewish state's recent military actions. Israel carried out air strikes on strategic targets near Damascus. This only boosted Moscow's determination to reinforce the air defence capability of its Middle Eastern ally Syria.