Thursday, March 10, 2016

Key Powers Mulling Possibility of Federal Division of Syria

As mentioned in this post: March 01/2016- Vladimir Putin, Godfather of Kurdistan? Not a Parent of Kurdistan?

Flashback:
"Brief but necessary ramblings:
Russia has sold Syria’s sovereignty down the river. As the US long did.
Both the US and Russia claim Syrian sovereignty is non negotiable. Both are lying. Would everyone feel better if I said- misleading?  Russia jumped into the Syrian fracas to block a split, a complete split, or a balkanization.  Pushing for some type of federated Syria instead of the US fracture. Speaking for myself, I wanted Syria to remain the nation that stole my heart. But, pretty much figured Russia was not going to save Syria in the way I’d hoped.We’re still looking at competing  ideologies when it comes to Syria-
Total balkanization vs some kind of loose federation.
Much was made about Kerry and his plan B talk. Kerry’s plan B, or some version of it,  was mentioned by Putin in his speech- I quoted and highlighted what he said in this post
  Putin: “Russian and American troops will jointly delineate the territories where these groups are active”

Delineate  to trace the outline of; sketch or trace in outline; represent pictorially:outline or define. Is Syria being divided up? Putin's statement certainly suggests that.
Putin told everyone there is a plan to delineate Syria- He said it himself. Kerry’s plan B is a partition. The devil may be in the details. The details are yet to come. But, as I've stated already it seems Putin is talking provinces or states under a central government- Kerry is advocating  multiple separate states each with their own government"
Many wanted to ignore the words Putin stated- But, that's a direct quote above.
The US/NATO gang have never, ever, concerned themselves with Syria. Syria's sovereignty or it's citizens. Federalization is the compromise most likely due to the presence of Russia and Iran. It does nothing for Turkey's destabilization problem- That will get worse.

Reuters for the latest:

A federation will not bring peace:
 Major powers close to U.N.-brokered peace talks on Syria are discussing the possibility of a federal division of the war-torn country that would maintain its unity as a single state while granting broad autonomy to regional authorities, diplomats said.

 Fighting in Syria has slowed considerably since a fragile "cessation of hostilities agreement" brokered by the United States and Russia came into force almost two weeks ago. But an actual peace deal and proper ceasefire remain elusive. 

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a U.N. Security Council diplomat said some major Western powers, not only Russia, have also been considering the possibility of a federal structure for Syria and have passed on ideas to de Mistura. 

"While insisting on retaining the territorial integrity of Syria, so continuing to keep it as a single country, of course there are all sorts of different models of a federal structure that would, in some models, have a very, very loose center and a lot of autonomy for different regions," the diplomat said.

He offered no details about the models of a federal division of authority that could be applied to Syria. Another council diplomat confirmed the remarks.


"Any mention of this federalism or something which might present a direction for dividing Syria is not acceptable at all. We have agreed we will expand non-central government in a future Syria, but not any kind of federalism or division," Syrian opposition coordinator Riad Hijab said.

But the idea of federalism for Syria has not been ruled out. In an interview with Al Jazeera on Thursday, de Mistura said "all Syrians have rejected division (of Syria) and federalism can be discussed at the negotiations."

In a September interview Assad did not rule out the idea of federalism when asked about it, but said any change must be a result of dialogue among Syrians and a referendum to introduce the necessary changes to the constitution.

"From our side, when the Syrian people are ready to move in a certain direction, we will naturally agree to this," he said at the time.

The co-leader of Syrian Kurdish PYD party, which exercises wide influence over Kurdish areas of Syria, has made clear the PYD was open to the idea.

"What you call it isn't important," PYD's Saleh Muslim told Reuters on Tuesday. "We have said over and over again that we want a decentralized Syria - call it administrations, call it federalism - everything is possible."
The Past 24 Hours

20 comments:

  1. Penny,

    I dont think that the FSA or ISIS will get autonomy, it is mainly for the Kurds. Like I said in a previous post, I think Russia and Iran are playing good cop bad cop. I think its going to be based on the Minsk Agreements in Ukraine, with federalization based on popular vote. I think Iran and Russia have enough support among Kurds that They may pull them from Israel/US. If not, I dont think the Kurds can afford to fight Turkey, Iran and Syria/Russia. Considering that Kurds are already fighting along with Hezbollah against FSA, I think some sort of autonomy is possible. I think the biggest loser will be turkey, which I think Russia will look the other way, if turks get blown up by Kurds.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Avirgo: "I dont think that the FSA or ISIS will get autonomy, it is mainly for the Kurds"

      I agree

      "I think its going to be based on the Minsk Agreements in Ukraine, with federalization based on popular vote."

      I have information here on Minsk- but, would need to reread it- if you have anything handy can you leave a link?
      Re: what you have written... federalization based on popular vote- that's how I'm seeing this happening.

      Time will tell about the rest-

      Delete
    2. Here is a statement of the Minsk Agreement

      http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/full-text-of-minsk-2-agreement.html

      Short summary:

      1. Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire 00.00, Kiev time, February 15th [2015] [Kiev regime still attacking daily]

      2. Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both parties at equal distances [distance 50km - 140 km depending on range] .. starting no later than the second day after the start of the ceasefire and be completed within 14 days. [Ukraine regime still firing]

      3. OSCE will monitor from 1st day of withdrawal. [OSCE monitors still attacked by Ukrainian forces]

      4. On the first day after the withdrawal a dialogue is to begin on the modalities of local elections ... Immediately and not later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document, a resolution is to be adopted in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine indicating the territories covered by the special regime in accordance with the Ukrainian Law ‘On the temporary regime of local government in some areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions’, based on the line set in the Minsk memorandum of September 19th, 2014. [Ukraine regime has not complied]

      5. Pardons and amnesties will be granted [for both sides] [Ukraine regime has ignored this]

      6. Hostages and illegally detained persons will be released and exchanged based on the principle ‘all for all’. This process must be completed no later than the fifth day after the withdrawal. [Prisoner exchanges still in progress]

      7. Provide secure access, delivery, storage and distribution of humanitarian assistance to the needy on the basis of an international mechanism.

      8. Determination of the modalities of the full restoration of socio-economic relations, including social transfers such as pensions and other payments (receipts and income, timely payment of all utility bills, renewal of taxation within the legal framework of Ukraine).

      9. Restoration of full control over the state border of Ukraine by the government throughout the conflict zone, which should begin on the first day after the local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement [preservation of territorial integrity of Ukraine with federalised east].

      10. Withdrawal of all foreign armed forces, military equipment, as well as mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine under the supervision of the OSCE. Disarmament of all illegal groups. [US/NATO troops still present. Neo-Nazis still active]

      11. Constitutional reform will be conducted in Ukraine, and a new constitution will enter into force by the end of 2015 which is intended as a key element of decentralisation. [Ignore by Ukraine regime]

      12. questions regarding local elections will be discussed and agreed with certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Three-Party Contact Group. Elections will be held in compliance with the relevant standards of the OSCE in monitoring by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. [Ukraine regime]

      13. To intensify the activities of the Three-Party Contact Group, including through the establishment of working groups to implement the relevant aspects of the Minsk Agreement. They will reflect the composition of the Three-Party Contact Group. [Ignored by Ukraine regime]

      In short, it aims for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine with de-centralized/federal solution for east (which is what Putin said he hoped for [neutral federal Ukraine] prior to the US-supported ethnic cleansing of the east). The Ukraine regime has ignored or notcomplied with the responsibilities it agreed to in signing the agreement.

      Delete
    3. thank you ! :)

      This is opposed by the US and co. I will assume?

      Delete
  2. Iran recently stated that they do not agree with everything Russia is doing in Syria. Would this be what they were cryptically referring to? Can't find the article but it was only a few days ago that it came out in ME news and I couldn't quite figure out then what they meant. But from the very beginning of this war on Syria Iran has been against any division of the country in any way. Even giving kurds their own "Barzanistan" spells disaster for both Iran and Turkey as they will be next. Thus the statement by the two countries this week about common aims in Syria?? Just food for thought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SP "Iran recently stated that they do not agree with everything Russia is doing in Syria"

      I saw an article reporting that a day or two ago, also.
      If this federalization is the plan, I can see why Iran wouldn't like it.

      "Even giving kurds their own "Barzanistan" spells disaster for both Iran and Turkey as they will be next"

      Agree 100 percent!

      Food for thought- Yup, lots of it!
      thanks :)

      Delete
    2. Is Barzanistan a correct description? Barzani wont be around long.

      Delete
    3. Barzani wont be around long.

      Charles, "It's a family affair"

      (N.B. I can't vouch for the reliability of the site or the author, but it is certain that the Barzani's are a dynasty as are the Talibani's)

      Delete
    4. Silver Palimino- check out the newest post

      Charles: Just an fyi: lots of people use the Barzanistan moniker for the Kurdish territory in Iraq- Willy Loman uses it also-

      Delete
    5. james!!! :)

      long time no see you around these parts- how are you?
      I hope good :)

      Charles is referring to my theory that Barzani will be gone, I'm suggesting before 2016 is out-

      The PKK hate him- I've done a couple of posts on this topic- Backing protests movements- terrorism causing financial losses to the government etc

      They are trying to bring the barzani gov down.

      Things are moving and changing so fast it makes my head spin



      Delete
  3. THE RUSSIANS WILL NOT ALLOW SYRIAN TERRITORY TO BE PARTITIONED into a Kurdistan, real, or de facto, because this would defeat the whole purpose of the Russian intervention! Though many wish to believe Russia intervened in Syria simply to rescue a client regime and safeguard a port, the Russians have always said they did not want Syria to collapse into anarchy whereupon Jihadis could use the ensuing chaos to set up shop and use Syrian territory as a base of operations for attacking (intervening in) the Russian Federation, under the guise of "liberating" its Islamic populations. Before the Iraqi government was destroyed in March of 2003, "Iraqi Kurdistan", the northern part of the country that, per UN Resolutions, was under the control of Western powers, happily played home to Ansar Al-Islam, a KURDISH BRANCH OF AL-QAEDA COMPRISED LARGELY OF KURDS, who operated with COMPLETE IMPUNITY, though the West claimed to be at war with Al-Qaeda at this time. The Russians know that if Syrian territory were to be ceded to the Kurds, who are totally reliant on Western support for their national aspirations, they will simply return to the practice of allowing Jihadis to gather on their soil, and use that as a springboard for attacking and destabilizing Russia, just like the Western-backed Afghan Jihadis in the 1980s. It's doubtful that Russia would risk a confrontation with NATO, and therefore WORLD WAR III, by assisting the Syrian government, only to allow the West to reverse Russian gains by establishing a Kurdish sector.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous:

      I hope you are correct. I really, really do. Because it breaks my heart to think of Syria being destroyed and the PKK terrorists having their own state (defacto or whatever)

      But, look at what Putin said- That's partition.

      “Russian and American troops will jointly delineate the territories where these groups are active”

      Here's Lavrov today:
      http://tass.ru/en/politics/861660
      quoting

      "Kurds, including the Democratic Union (party) headed by Salih Muslim, control, in accordance with common estimates, at least 15% of the territory where they live in peaceful times," Lavrov said. "Now, when Kurds have become allies to the US-led coalition and Russia in the fight against Islamic State and Jebhat al-Nusra (terrorist organizations banned in Russia), they (Kurds) have strengthened their influence ‘on the ground’, their positions," he added."Starting talks without this group is a demonstration of weakness of the international community,"

      I can see no other way to interpret what Putin and Lavrov are stating- the "international community" use, signals to me this is all agreed upon- what happens afterwards, I don't know.. but that sure reads as if the Kurds will have their Rojova


      " a KURDISH BRANCH OF AL-QAEDA COMPRISED LARGELY OF KURDS, who operated with COMPLETE IMPUNITY, though the West claimed to be at war with Al-Qaeda at this time"

      I've written about the Kurds and their terror ways- their interconnections to ISIS- the fact that they are Sunni Muslim, avoided by everyone, almost everywhere, but here, by myself.

      As for Russian gains? What were those? Did they assist SAA in taking back land annexed by the PKK? They didn't

      Delete
  4. A de facto kurdish state exists already in Iraq. A Syrian kurdish principality would necessarily be included in any federalization process. I see no way it would not be? Putin made an explicit statement. What other result do you see?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I saw another outcome, but, I just don't :(

      Delete
    2. Me too. I do not agree the Kurds need their own state. I realize the arbitrary borders established by the colonizers after WWI did not take into account various ethnicities, but the etnic cleansing of areas becomes the primary reason and result. Beyond the very obvious power plays and purely criminal reasons; the kurds.

      Delete
    3. Penny, Charles,
      I have thought from the beginning that Syria and Russia allowing the US to be involved in Syria in any way was and is a mistake. They are driven by the psychopathic imperative to destroy whether it is slowly through control or quickly through outright war.

      Al Assad was forced to strategically withdraw forces from the Kurdish areas of Syria at the beginning of the terrorist invasion. The understanding was that the Kurds would defend their own area in return for de facto autonomy.

      The Kurds, though, took the opportunity to expand their territory which was not part of the deal. So they are not exactly trustworthy as has been pointed out repeatedly here.

      But Russia and Syria want to regain sovereignty over Syrian territory as soon as possible but also want to end the fighting and destruction asap, too. The second aim is best achieved through a political deal with the Kurds involving federalization i.e. limited autonomy but no Kurdish control over foreign relations which is vital for Syrian sovereignty and long term existence.

      This fits with Russia's political philosophy but has the downside of giving legitimacy to the local psychopathic kurdish leaders who will inevitably deal one way or another with the US/UK/israel.

      All of this means little to the average Kurd because which ever way it goes they are going to have to deal with psychopaths having control over their lives.

      Delete
    4. Hey james:

      Yup, federalization.

      As you can see- not everyone likes that idea- Or me for saying it- but, if that's how I see it, then that's how I see it (shrugs shoulders)

      I had hoped this would turn out different for so many reasons. One good reason is the very downside you mention:

      "legitimacy to the local psychopathic kurdish leaders who will inevitably deal one way or another with the US/UK/israel."

      big problem.

      "All of this means little to the average Kurd because which ever way it goes they are going to have to deal with psychopaths having control over their lives.

      Sadly their leadership has already shown the manner in which they are going to deal with the average kurd- And it's ugly

      Delete
  5. A couple things,

    First, let's seperate the Kurds from their western sponsered gangster overlords.

    Second, there were roughly 300000 Kurds in Syria before the war, compared to 25 million Syrians. The lukely calculation is even if they were granted a province of their own, it would be extremely weak in practical terms and much more importantly, Syrian Kurds would have a strong interest in ousting their western sponsered 'rulers.'

    I'll add a third point: Russia wants a level of autonomy granted to Russians in Ukraine, or failing that autonomy for Donbas. They can't push for this while simultaneously opposing the supposed aspirations of Syrian Kurds.

    All of this is important context when considering the Russian position on a temporary 'cessation' agreement, which Russia and Syria need to consolidate their positions and launch an offensive towards Palmyra and Raqqa.

    It is Turkey, Iraq and most certainly Iran which have a strong interest in blocking an independent Kurdistan. For the Syrians it is the least of their problems.

    Meanwhile Rouhani is playing a double game vis a vis Russia and Syria. Not long ago Rafsanjani, a backer of 'reformists,' has said he doesn't care what happens to Syria since it is a core interest for the Islamic Republic.

    Put it all together and you will understand that Russia is indeed supporting their one true ally in the reguon but as everyone must understand by now, the conflict is a long way from over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry,

      Rafsanjani said Syria is NOT a core interest for the Islamic Republic.

      In other words, Rouhani takes orders from the US and Israel, Hezbollah be damned.

      Delete
  6. CIeh?

    "I'll add a third point: Russia wants a level of autonomy granted to Russians in Ukraine, or failing that autonomy for Donbas. They can't push for this while simultaneously opposing the supposed aspirations of Syrian Kurds"

    that's an interesting thought- thanks for sharing it

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS