Josep Borrell to Asharq Al-Awsat: Regime, Not Sanctions, Responsible for Syrian People’s Suffering

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. (Reuters)
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. (Reuters)
TT
20

Josep Borrell to Asharq Al-Awsat: Regime, Not Sanctions, Responsible for Syrian People’s Suffering

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. (Reuters)
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell. (Reuters)

High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission Josep Borrell hoped that Tuesday’s donor conference on Syria will match last year’s pledge of 6 billion euros. In an extensive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, he said the Europeans have provided some 20 billion euros to Syria since the eruption of its crisis in 2011.

“The Brussels Conference is our most effective tool to maintain the world’s attention on the need to solve this conflict and to continue mobilizing the international community around a political solution,” he said. “We will continue to do our part.”

“As in previous Brussels Conferences on Syria, we have invited neither the regime nor the opposition. This might be reconsidered only and once a political process is firmly under way, including free elections as foreseen under UN Security Council resolution 2254,” he added.

“During all these years, our vital support has reached the Syrian people. The Syrian regime bears responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and healthcare crises in Syria. Not sanctions,” Borrell stated.

What do you expect of the donor conference in Brussels on June 30? How does this one differ from the previous ones?

Syria entered its tenth year of war. In the past nine years, half of the Syrian population had to flee their homes. Over half a million people died. An entire generation of Syrian children has only known war. They all deserve a better, peaceful future. The Brussels Conference is our most effective tool to maintain the world’s attention on the need to solve this conflict and to continue mobilizing the international community around a political solution as called for in UN Security Council resolution 2254. This is the only way to bring back lasting peace and stability for Syrians.

The Conference will be 2020’s main pledging event for Syria and the region, addressing the critical needs generated by the crisis, but it goes way beyond a donor conference. It is about continuing to support, politically and financially, Syria's neighbors and their people, who have shown extraordinary solidarity towards Syrian refugees. It has also grown into a unique opportunity for Syria’s civil society to engage in direct dialogue with the donor community and refugee-hosting countries. We could not gather people physically this year but we built a week of events where Syria’s youth, women and civil society organizations could interact with the international community. This is crucial, not only because they are the voices of the Syrian people but also because they hold the key to a better future for Syria.

A few factors raise the stakes for this year’s Conference. The grave deterioration of the economic and humanitarian situation, the recent military offensive from the part of the regime and its supporters, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as the ongoing coronavirus crisis all further exacerbate already dire living conditions of the Syrians. They have had enough. Together with the United Nations, who play a crucial and leading role, we are sparing no efforts to remain at their side and live up to their hope for a brighter and peaceful future.

Last year’s conference provided aid worth 6.2 billion euros. Do you think that you would get the same pledges this year? Would you be able to respond to the United Nations appeal for humanitarian aid?

It is impossible to give a figure of likely pledging ahead of this year’s Conference. Amounts also vary from year to year, depending on donors’ approaches. We remain as ambitious as we are every year in support of the Syrian people and their host communities in neighboring countries. We are all working together, not least with our co-chair the United Nations, to ensure that Syrians across the whole of Syria, as well as refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, can continue receiving the support and protection of the international community over the coming year. That is the least they should expect and the least we can do.

As the European Union, we have provided over 20 billion euros since the beginning of the crisis in humanitarian, stabilization, development and economic assistance. We are the biggest donor for Syrian people. Two thirds of all the money spent to help Syrians and Syria’s neighbors came from the EU and its member states. And we will continue to do our part.

On top of the unprecedented humanitarian and economic crisis and all the suffering they have been going through, Syrians are now also enduring the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. This year’s Conference will also address this issue. As EU, we have been adapting our current assistance in response to this new and additional challenge, working hard to ensure that life-saving equipment reaches those in need in Syria.

Why was the Syrian government not invited to the Brussels conference?

As in previous Brussels Conferences on Syria, we have invited neither the regime nor the opposition. This might be reconsidered only and once a political process is firmly under way, including free elections as foreseen under UN Security Council resolution 2254.

The resolution clearly states that “the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria”. This is not just nice words for the EU, it is our compass. Nobody should hold their future hostage. This is why we are ensuring a meaningful input and a very large involvement of Syria’s civil society, with extensive online consultations held ahead of the Conference in Syria and in the region. Days of Dialogue also took place virtually on 22 and 23 June, consisting of discussions between civil society, ministers and senior decision-makers from refugee-hosting countries, the EU, the United Nations and other international partners. These contributions will feed in the Ministerial meeting of the Conference on 30 June. Syria’s civil society, its aid workers, its women and youth organizations are the future of the country.

How would you explain Russia's participation in the conference despite its criticism of not inviting the Syrian government?

As in previous years, all those members of the international community with influence in the conflict in Syria and that have expressed a will to support diplomatic efforts, in accordance with UN Security Council relevant resolutions, have been invited. In this regard, the EU welcomes the participation of the Russian Federation.

The conference comes after the European Union renewed economic sanctions against Damascus and the start of implementing the US Caesar Act. Does it have any effect on Brussels conference?

One of the key objectives of the Conference is for the international community to come together behind the UN-facilitated and Syrian-led political process. International pressure on Damascus to fully and genuinely participate in negotiations in the framework of UN Security Council resolution 2254, which is also done through sanctions, is of course part of this effort.

Moscow and Damascus say that these sanctions will harm the flow of the humanitarian and medical aid. What’s your reply?

EU sanctions are neither new nor aimed at the civilian population. They target individuals and entities that have been supporting the repression and the regime, financing them or benefitting from the war economy. They are designed not to impede the delivery of humanitarian and medical assistance, including crucial support in the current situation of the coronavirus pandemic. They do not prohibit the export of food, medicines or medical equipment. Even for potentially dangerous dual-use goods, for example chemicals also needed for pharmaceutical use, a number of exceptions are foreseen for humanitarian purposes.

The EU has been and remains the largest humanitarian donor to the Syria crisis with over 20 billion euros mobilized since 2011. During all these years, our vital support has reached the Syrian people.

The Syrian regime bears responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and healthcare crises in Syria. Not sanctions. On the contrary, it is mostly thanks to international assistance that healthcare, food, education or protection can still be delivered to people in need inside Syria. I could also add that trade has also continued throughout the war between the EU and Syria. We have never placed Syria under any kind of embargo.

What are the conditions that the European Union can lift the sanctions against Damascus?

EU sanctions concerning Syria have been in place since 9 May 2011 in response to the Syrian regime’s violent repression against its own people, including human rights violations, the use of live ammunition against peaceful protesters and the proliferation and use of chemical weapons. These were not imposed lightly. They are the consequence of grave human rights violations and potential war crimes and crimes against humanity, which must be accounted for.

Our list now includes 273 individuals and 70 entities. The goal of these measures is to put pressure on the Syrian regime to halt repression and negotiate a lasting political settlement of the Syrian crisis in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254, under UN auspices. Without a change of behavior and a constructive and genuine commitment to the political process, sanctions will remain. They are part and parcel of the EU’s wider approach to the Syria crisis. We also review them constantly to assess, inter alia, effects and developments on the ground.

EU has linked any contribution to the reconstruction of Syria with the success of the political process in Syria. What is your position on the reconstruction of Syria now?

The EU has been very clear on this. Europeans are willing to support the future of the Syria population and help them reconstruct their country but there are parameters for the EU's engagement. The EU will only participate in Syria's reconstruction when a genuine political transition in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254 is firmly underway. If this is not the case, all efforts will be in vain. Reconstruction requires minimal conditions in terms of stability, governance, public accountability, and representativeness of the governing authorities. Syria currently fulfils none of these criteria.

The EU’s reconstruction support cannot be invested in a context that would exacerbate pre-war inequalities and grievances and would not lead to reconciliation and peace building. The focus of reconstruction is not simply to rebuild infrastructure and housing – it is about restoring Syria’s social fabric, rebuilding trust and creating conditions that will mitigate or prevent the recurrence of violence, as well as responding to the grievances that sparked the conflict. Syrians deserve to live in a country where they all feel safe and protected by an impartial judiciary and by the rule of law and where human dignity is ensured.

The Brussels conference is co-chaired by the United Nations. What is your position on the efforts of the UN Envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen?

Our position remains that only a political solution achieved in the framework of UN-brokered Geneva negotiations can guarantee a peaceful future for Syria. We fully support the work of the United Nations and of UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen. The Brussels Conferences aim at rallying the international community behind the UN efforts to advance a political solution.

The Conference will also back the calls by UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Special Envoy Pedersen towards a nationwide ceasefire and the release of detainees, especially in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

Russia announced its willingness to negotiate with America to reach a political solution in Syria. What is your position on the American-Russian dialogue on Syria?

Any progress towards the political resolution of the Syria conflict is to be welcomed. We insist that there should be no compromise on certain principles. Both Russia and the US support UN Security Council resolution 2254 and any solution to the Syria conflict must be in line with that resolution. For us in the EU, there can be no normalization of relations with the Syrian regime, and by extension no commitment of international funding for reconstruction, until there is real engagement in a genuine, comprehensive and inclusive political process. Also, the return of refugees to Syria could only be supported by the international community only under the condition that they would be guaranteed to be safe, voluntary and dignified.

Do you think a US- Russia deal, will be enough? How does it look like for you?

Again, the future of Syria is for the Syrians to decide. This is what UN Security Council resolution 2254 says. The political negotiations on Syria's future must be Syrian-owned and Syrian-led. Both the US and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council, have committed to support the genuine, comprehensive and inclusive political process set out in UN Security Council resolution 2254.

Currently, Syria has three spheres of influence: North East of Syria, North west, and the rest of the country. Does the European Union have the same vision for these zones?

The European Union will not waver in its commitment to the full sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Syria. Precise governance arrangements within Syria are a matter for the Syrians to decide.

In 2021 there will be presidential election in Syria. How do you see that? How do you see Syria in one year from now?

Meaningful elections in Syria will be those held on the basis of a new Syrian Constitution, as foreseen in UN Security Council resolution 2254. They will mark the opening of a new chapter for the country and for its people.

If other elections are held before that, I encourage the Syrian regime to demonstrate its commitment to genuine political openness, for instance by making sure they are open to all Syrians, including those abroad, and that they are free and fair. However, in no way will this replace the need for real engagement in a political process and for the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2254.

How Syria will look a year from now will depend on the commitment of the regime to the implementation of that resolution as the only internationally accepted way forward. Not for our benefit, not for theirs or their supporters’, but for the benefit of all Syrians.



Al-Hadi Idris to Asharq Al-Awsat: The Parallel Government Aims to Prevent Sudan’s Fragmentation

Al-Hadi Idris, former member of Sudan’s Sovereign Council (Asharq Al-Awsat).
Al-Hadi Idris, former member of Sudan’s Sovereign Council (Asharq Al-Awsat).
TT
20

Al-Hadi Idris to Asharq Al-Awsat: The Parallel Government Aims to Prevent Sudan’s Fragmentation

Al-Hadi Idris, former member of Sudan’s Sovereign Council (Asharq Al-Awsat).
Al-Hadi Idris, former member of Sudan’s Sovereign Council (Asharq Al-Awsat).

As Sudan grapples with ongoing turmoil following the outbreak of war in April 2023, the establishment of a “parallel government” in areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has sparked widespread concern. Domestically, regionally, and internationally, fears are mounting over Sudan’s future, the risk of further division, and the threat of another partition. However, supporters of this initiative—who recently signed a new constitution and a governance roadmap—view it as a major opportunity to build a new Sudan founded on freedom, democracy, and justice, preventing the country from descending into chaos and fragmentation.

A Government for Peace and Unity

The new administration, known as the “Government of Peace and Unity,” aims to rebuild the state on principles of justice and equality while ensuring essential services for all Sudanese citizens—not just those in RSF-controlled areas. Its proponents have sought to reassure both Sudanese citizens and neighboring countries that their objective is to preserve Sudan’s unity.

Emerging at a critical juncture, this initiative presents itself as an alternative to the military-backed government based in Port Sudan, which serves as Sudan’s temporary capital. The parallel government hopes to earn the trust of Sudanese citizens and secure international support by demonstrating a serious commitment to ending the war and reconstructing the state on democratic, secular, and decentralized foundations.

Will this government succeed in bringing about the desired peace, or will the challenges it faces prove insurmountable? Asharq Al-Awsat spoke with Dr. Al-Hadi Idris, a key leader in the “Tasis” coalition behind the formation of the parallel government.

Why Form a Parallel Government?

Idris, a former member of Sudan’s Sovereign Council during the transitional government led by Dr. Abdalla Hamdok, emphasized that their goal is to establish a “government of peace and unity.”

“As a political and military force, we have always been committed to resolving Sudan’s crisis, which erupted on April 15, 2023, through peaceful means,” Idris explained. “We have made extensive efforts to push those supporting the war toward dialogue and engagement with peace initiatives, including those in Jeddah, Manama, and Geneva. However, the army and the de facto authorities in Port Sudan have refused to negotiate. This left us with no choice but to explore more effective ways to bring the warring parties to the table and stop the conflict. The formation of a parallel government is a step toward fulfilling our responsibilities to the many people who have been neglected and left without adequate care.”

Why Is the Army Refusing Dialogue?

Idris, who also leads the Revolutionary Front—a coalition of armed movements from Darfur and political groups outside the region, such as the Beja Congress led by Osama Saeed and the Kush Movement from northern Sudan—claims that the military’s reluctance to negotiate stems from external influences.

“We understand why the army refuses to come to the negotiating table,” he said. “It is under the control of the Islamic movement and remnants of the former regime, who fear that any political process will remove them from power and diminish their influence. They are keen on prolonging the war despite the devastation, suffering, and displacement it causes to civilians.”

Accusations of Division Policies

Idris accused Sudan’s military leaders of implementing measures that risk deepening the country’s divisions. These include issuing a new currency exclusive to areas under their control, restricting access to education in certain regions, and selectively issuing travel and identity documents.

“Such actions could lead to the country’s partition, which we completely oppose,” he stressed.

A Government for All Sudanese

Idris rejected claims that the new government is tied solely to Darfur or the RSF.

“Our government is not for Darfur alone, nor for the RSF or any single region,” he said. “It represents all of Sudan—from north to south, east to west. We have drafted a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all, signed by individuals and entities from across the country. The new government will be responsible for rebuilding the state and delivering essential services, including education, healthcare, and security.”

Local and Regional Concerns

Despite strong opposition to a parallel government from neighboring states, as well as international and regional organizations—including the United Nations and IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development)—Idris remains confident that these concerns will dissipate once the government takes shape.

“People have a right to be worried,” he admitted. “But once they see our government in action, they will understand that we stand for unity, peace, and stability—not the opposite.”

International Recognition: A Secondary Concern

Idris dismissed concerns over whether the new government would gain international recognition.

“This is not something that worries us,” he said. “We have already engaged with countries like Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Chad, where we have encountered sympathy for our cause. These nations have a vested interest in Sudan’s stability. In Uganda, we were received by President Yoweri Museveni himself, and in Kenya, President William Ruto welcomed us with open arms.”

The Failure of the Old State Model

According to Idris, Sudan’s traditional state structure has failed and is no longer viable.

“The world is changing around us,” he observed. “Lebanon has entered a new era, and Syria has moved past its oppressive old regime. The old political systems have no future. Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, no government has succeeded in establishing a stable, unified national state. Our history is marked by conflict and instability. That is why, during our meetings in Nairobi, we emphasized the need for a democratic, secular, and decentralized state that protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of their regional or ethnic background.”

A Role for the US in Ending the War

Idris believes the United States can play a decisive role in resolving the Sudanese conflict.

“Washington was heavily involved from the beginning of the war in 2023,” he said. “President Joe Biden’s administration made significant efforts to help Sudan, though it was unable to stop the war. We hope that the new US administration under Donald Trump will take a more effective approach, using a mix of incentives and pressure on all parties to achieve peace. We are open to working with anyone who can help resolve the crisis. Our government is a government of peace, and we are ready to engage with all stakeholders.”

Protecting Civilians from Airstrikes

Idris stressed that any legitimate government must prioritize civilian protection.

“A government that does not protect its citizens has no value,” he asserted. “We will appoint a defense minister whose primary mission will be to develop defensive strategies aimed at safeguarding civilians by all possible means. Additionally, we are working to establish the nucleus of a new national army, drawing from our allied forces, including the RSF, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, the Sudan Liberation Movement-Transitional Council, and other armed factions. A unified Joint Chiefs of Staff will be formed, and after the war ends, this force will serve as the foundation for a restructured national army dedicated solely to border protection and internal security—completely detached from politics.”

“There will no longer be two separate armies,” Idris declared. “There will be one unified military.”

Currency and Travel Documents

Idris confirmed that the new government will introduce its own currency, passports, and travel documents.

“The currency issue was a major factor in our decision to establish this government,” he said. “In many parts of Sudan, people rely on bartering because the Port Sudan government has drained cash supplies from areas outside its control. As a result, goods like salt, sugar, and wheat are traded in lieu of money. In some regions, cash is virtually nonexistent, making daily life incredibly difficult.”

When Will the New Government Be Announced?

Idris revealed that intensive consultations are underway to finalize the launch date.

“We expect to announce the new government within a month, from inside Sudan,” he said. “We have several options for where the announcement will take place, and we will reveal the location in the coming days.”

Participation in Future Negotiations

As for potential peace talks, Idris made it clear: “We are open to any serious and responsible initiative—whether local, regional, or international—but we will only engage in negotiations as the legitimate government of Sudan, a government of peace.”