"OWN GAME" AND OTHER RESOLUTIONS

The Syrian crisis is nearing its end. Although the main area of the diplomatic struggle between all the parties concerned has finally moved to the United Nations Security Council, it is clear that the decisive factor in this or that resolution of the problem will be not the will of the global organization, but the policies of powerful Western centres that have long decided that the future of Syria is unthinkable under the current President Bashar al-Assad.

The death toll in the protracted confrontation between the government forces and the Syrian opposition has reached nearly 17,000 people. Recent days have seen new bloody tragedies, which the conflicting parties are blaming on each other. The opposition claims that it was forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad that attacked the village of Tremseh in the province of Hama in the central part of the country, killing more than 200 people, most of whom were civilians. The Syrian authorities, for their part, insist that all the mass killings of civilians are the doing of terrorist gangs, against which the army is conducting special operations.

Meanwhile, the diplomatic background around the Syrian crisis has changed several times in recent weeks: the probability of a more or less peaceful solution to the conflict was suddenly superseded by the prospect of a so-called military settlement.

The meeting of the foreign ministers of member countries of the UN Security Council in late June adopted a communiqu? recommending the establishment of a transitional government in Syria, the establishment of a new constitutional order and the holding of multiparty elections, on the basis of which new government agencies were to be formed. It is noteworthy that the communiqu? was supported not only by Western powers, but also by Russia. Thus, for the first time since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the West and Russia reached a real, though not very strong, agreement on the basis of which you can still prevent a civilian massacre in Syria and foreign military intervention in the country.

Generally speaking, Moscow's consent to sign this document points to the fact that Russia has embarked on a diplomatic manoeuvre, apparently fearing a blow to its image, if the West decided to act solely in accordance with its own vision of the Syrian crisis, ignoring the position of the UN Security Council, Russia and China. This is proved by the fact that Moscow was visited by a delegation of the Syrian opposition. Its members admitted that the delegation's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was successful and constructive even though the parties "agreed that it was difficult to reach an agreement immediately".

In addition, Russia announced the termination of new arms supplies to Syria until the situation in the country normalizes. Although this statement specifically stated that Moscow's decision does not apply to supplies of Russian helicopters to Syria, the West regarded the move as its own intermediate victory in the Syrian confrontation.

Amid the apparent convergence of the positions of the West and Russia, intensive negotiations in the region were held by the special UN envoy Kofi Annan, the author of a peace plan for Syria. He visited Iraq, Iran, and Syria itself, where he held talks with President al-Assad. In Damascus, Annan discussed the possibility of forming a transitional government in the country and then called on the UN Security Council to make it clear to the Syrian authorities and the opposition that both parties "will face the consequences" if they do not obey the demands of the international community to cease fire.

However, all these diplomatic developments, which inspired some hope for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, cannot conceal the true nature of events related to a military solution to the crisis.

In fact, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton warned the al-Assad regime about it, stating that the time is running out to achieve a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria. Moreover, expressing confidence that the days of the al-Assad regime are numbered, she actually pointed to the danger of the collapse of the Syrian state.

A clarion call to move to a new stage and increase international pressure on the Syrian government to ensure that Kofi Annan's plan is implemented was voiced at the Paris meeting of the "Friends of Syria". The latter invoked Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which calls for the use of sanctions and armed forces on the initiative of the UN Security Council to maintain or restore peace and security.

But the rub is that the UN Security Council is not able to reach a common view on ways to overcome the Syrian crisis. A real diplomatic battle unfolded between Russia and its Western opponents at the Security Council. The US, Britain, France and Germany proposed a draft resolution that gives the al-Assad regime 10 days to stop the fighting. Otherwise, the document says, economic and diplomatic sanctions will be applied in regard to the Syrian government.

In addition, the draft resolution prepared by the Western countries also contains a proposal to extend the mandate of the UN Observer Mission in Syria, which expires on 20 July, for just 45 days. Meanwhile, the draft resolution proposed by Russia on Syria suggests that the presence of international observers there should be extended for three months. But the main difference between the Western and Russian drafts is that the latter contains no mention of sanctions against Syria. The Russian side believes that the sanctions will have no effect. In response, Western officials said that the Russian draft resolution does not live up to the expectations of the international community. In turn, Russia and China, which supports its position on the Syrian issue, warned that they might use their right of veto at the UN Security Council and will not support the Western draft resolution containing threats of sanctions against Syria.

The Russia-West confrontation at the UN has almost moved to the Mediterranean basin. Great concern in the US and Europe was caused by the movement of Russian navy ships to the Syrian coast. Moscow has a rather simple explanation for this demarche: the ships were sent not to protect the al-Assad regime and not to evacuate Russian citizens from the war-torn country, but only to develop actions to protect civilian ships from pirates. But this move still made a bad impression.

It was too obvious: the journey of the Russian ships began just a few days after it became known that a NATO naval group of German, Turkish and French frigates was heading for the eastern Mediterranean. According to official reports, the mission has an anti-terrorist nature, but it is difficult not to see this action as the desire of the Alliance to intimidate Damascus.

The situation was further fuelled by The Sunday Times report that Russian specialists had a hand in the destruction of the Turkish military aircraft by the Syrian air defences, as well as by the statement by the leader of the Democratic Left Party of Turkey, Masum Turker, who accused the Russian ship Admiral Chabanenko of destroying the Turkish fighter RF-4E.

The bizarre nature of such statements does not deny tensions around Syria. Moreover, Turkey is playing an increasingly active role in the developments, warning after the story of the downed aircraft that from now on, it will respond to all provocations from the Syrian side.

Ankara makes it clear that the Annan plan was President al-Assad's last chance for a peaceful departure from power. Turkish President Abdullah Gul said that the Syrian leader "failed to use it and now it is necessary to strengthen measures to resolve the crisis in the country". And although, according to the chief of the Turkish general staff, Necdet Ozer, "Turkey does not intend to start a war with Syria", it is clear that Ankara will play the role of an observer in untying the Syrian knot.

Turkey is prompted to be active in the Syrian direction not only by the desire to gain a foothold as a leading country in the Middle East. Taking into account the lessons of the so-called Iraqi settlement, in which Kurdish autonomy unexpectedly appeared along the south-eastern borders of Turkey, which refused to take part in the operation to overthrow the regime of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Turkey is playing a risky game to stay ahead and prevent such a scenario in Syria. It is not by chance that in these days, which are crucial for the future of Syria, Kurdish terrorists have suddenly become more active along the Turkish-Iraqi border area. It is also clear that in Hillary Clinton's scenario for the collapse of Syria, the Kurdish factor plays a fairly significant role.

This is evidenced by the following fact: the two leading organizations of Syrian Kurds, who oppose the regime of Bashar al-Assad, recently announced their merger into a single bloc. The Kurdish National Council and the National Council of Western Kurdistan now constitute a single Kurdish Supreme Council. The decision to merge was taken on the basis of negotiations which, inter alia, involved Iraqi Kurdish leader Masud Barzani. "We have built a unified Kurdish home in order to unite our strength," the Kurdish opposition said in a statement.

All this once again points to the fact that what is happening in Syria is part of the large-scale reconstruction of the Middle East, in which the interests of all and everyone clash (US, Europe, Russia, Turkey, etc.). The only question is will the people of Syria succeed in defending their right to freedom and independence in this global mess.