Mr. Matuzov, thank you so much for joining us. As far as I understand there are two issues which we are going to discuss in our today?s program. One would be the alleged change in Russia?s stance on the Syrian problem. And the other issue would be ? shall we put it ?the relations between the opposition, radical Islamists and the West in Syria. So, let?s start from the first one. I believe that mass media yesterday made huge headlines saying that Russia is going to revise its stance on Syria. How relevant is that?
Well, this insinuation that we heard yesterday was absolutely untrustworthy because it was taken from some declarations of unreliable sources. For example Mikhail Bogdanov ? the Deputy Foreign Minister ? was saying something that is absolutely opposite to official position of the Russian Federation that was proclaimed by the Minister Foreign Affairs, by our President. I think this falsification of informational field became like a second kind of instrument for fighting the Syrian Government. So, I think that it is just a position that was used by our opponents.
Sir, could we elaborate a little bit on that? Because what they were quoting was something which Mr. Bogdanov really said, and he said that perhaps the opposition in Syria might get an upper hand.
The fighting that is going on in Syria today is becoming more and more extensive day by day because thousands of volunteers from different Islamic extremist factions are coming to Syria to fight against the Syrian Government. And Russia is not supporting those who are trying to overthrow the Government in Syria, the Syrian authorities. I think Bogdanov was speaking about this increasing tension in Syria.
This is correct because now they are threatening the Russian and Ukrainian embassies in Damascus. These extremist groups, which are now even enlisted by the US State Department as terrorist organizations, like Jabhat al-Nusra, made threats to the Russian embassy. And that?s why I think that Bogdanov was speaking about this side of the Syrian situation which is deteriorating because of increasing activity of terrorist groups.
That?s another story, but Russia never changed its approach to the Syrian situation because it is based on a big principle of the Russian foreign policy of respecting the UN Charter, of the international law and noninterference in internal affairs of independent state, member of the UN.
Mr. Matuzov, definitely this quote was taken out of the context. But now I have also heard some experts saying that as soon as the US has recognized that new oppositional body as a legitimate representative of Syria ? that might mean that ultimately a military operation on the ground would become possible if that opposition, which is recognized as legitimate, would be considered to be threatened.
Ekaterina, I don?t think that we will see some principal changes in the American position because the US was on the side of oppositional military groups from the very beginning of the Syrian crisis. It is not a new appearance of American foreign policy in the ME. I think that these kinds of declarations don?t influence the events on the ground. On the ground there is a military battle between the Syrian authorities acknowledged by the UN as a member state and from the other side there are oppositional groups which mainly are of foreign origin.
Now in Maghreb, in Marrakesh where was the friends of Syria gathering, they acknowledged that the mainstream oppositional military forces consist of Jabhat al-Nusra which means extremist Islamic fundamentalist forces fighting with no rules, with no restrictions against the Syrian authority and Syrian regular army. So, I think that this phenomena of active participation in the struggle of terroristic Islamic fundamentalist groups from all over the world ? from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Turkey and many other countries ? that means that Syria is really facing foreign intervention.
I don?t think that the NATO organization will be capable of interfering openly in the Syrian crisis today. I think it is impossible without the UN Security Council decision. Russia will use all its capabilities to veto any attempt to interfere in the internal Syrian affairs. I think it is excluded and we are now watching increasing tensions based on illegal militarized groups that are supported morally, informationally, financially and militarily by the Western side. I think it is a dangerous situation that was created not by the Russian position but by American miscalculation on the international and regional levels in the ME.
And now we are approaching to the other question which I mentioned. How realistic would it be to expect that those terrorist groups would still be controlled by some outer force? I?m not talking about them being controlled by the Syrian opposition, because definitely the rest of the Syrian opposition is inferior to those more active groups like the one which has been listed as terrorist group recently. But could there be a development when those terrorists would rise against the Americans, against their presence there?
Well, I participated in one TV talk show discussion with this national coalition of the Syrian opposition that is resurrected in Qatar. There was a representative of this Syrian opposition in Paris. And when he was at the gathering in Marrakesh, he participated in some talk shows. He openly told to American representatives, to me in air that he disagrees with American approach to this terroristic groups operating in Syria because the US prohibited the oppositional leaders to invite Jabhat al-Nusra to Morocco to participate in this gathering. Why? Because they are enlisted as a terroristic group. And all the oppositional leaders that were present there in Morocco were upset with this American position. This is a split of interests.
So, I think that the US understands what kind of oppositional forces operate in Syria. And the oppositional leaders absolutely clearly acknowledged that the main forces that are fighting the Syrian authorities are Jabhat al-Nusra. In other words, it is an international terroristic group that came to Syria from other countries to fight in favour of the new Islamic Sharia order in Syria. I think that the Syrian people as a nation reject this opportunity. We watched the same process in Egypt today with the MB who are trying to impose their rules to the Egyptian society and the society rejected these efforts.
In Syria the situation will be more serious because Syria is a civil country with the elected parliament, with the elected president who is not a king, who is not emir, who is not sheikh. Bashar Assad is the President of an independent republican state that is called Syria.
So, what is it on the part of the US? Is it a political blunder? But there is a huge historical experience, if we remember the Taliban and other terrorist organizations that initially were used as instruments in a fight against existing regimes but then turned against the US. Just let?s remember Bin Laden of all people. Does that mean that the US is committing the same mistake or could there be other reasons for them supporting the terrorists?
America doesn?t care much about the consequences of their interference. As I can understand American policy, I see that the US is trying to remove every regime that is an obstacle on their way to domination in the ME. Syrian regime is that kind of obstacle. I think that what is going with the American policy is that they don?t care about the consequences. And that?s why are ruining the existing political systems and don?t suggest anything because they do not accept Islamic fundamentalist ruling and reject the civil ruling that was before. They have nothing to say to the Syrian people.
I think that supporting all principles of democracy and the rights of people is not enough. America lost the main substance of their foreign policy, the goal of their activity. I think that their approach to Morocco gathering for the friends of Syria absolutely clearly reflects this situation. American policy in the ME is in a deadlock and they don?t see any way out of the current situation. I think ruining will bring chaos, anarchy and instability to the whole of this region. If the US is satisfied with these consequences, I don?t think that many states, including the states of the region and surrounding the region countries ? the Russian Federation, the Chinese Republic, India and many other countries ? will agree with this American activity in the ME.
Sir, thank you so much. This is a grim assessment but I believe it is quite realistic.
Thank you indeed.
And just to remind you our guest speaker was Vyacheslav Matusov ? President of the Russian-Arab Business Cooperation Society.
Source: http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_16/Syria-tension-grows/
olympics chariots of fire nbc Medal Count Sam Mikulak London 2012 diving Tim Berners-Lee
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন