Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
TT

Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS

Discussions that took place between the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven in London over the past two days revealed some change in the position of the United States and its allies regarding the Syrian file. While the group has maintained the same policy, efforts to implement it have declined and are no longer an urgent priority for the administration of US President Joe Biden.

Some parties suggested adding a phrase to the final statement of the London meeting, including an indication that the time was not appropriate for “any form of normalization” with Damascus. The assistants of some of the ministers drafting the proposal relied on two previous statements issued on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Syrian protests: the first by the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, Germany, France, and Italy, and the second by Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The two statements noted that the proposed Syrian presidential elections this year would be neither free nor fair, and should not lead to any measure of international normalization with the Syrian regime.

However, the G7 final statement issued following the first direct meeting between the leaders in two years reiterated previous points announced in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, namely the chemical file and humanitarian aid, in addition to a brief reference to the Syrian presidential elections scheduled for May 26.

The statement read: “In line with UNSCR 2254 and 1325, we urge all parties, especially the regime, to engage meaningfully with the inclusive UN-facilitated political process to resolve the conflict, notably the Constitutional Committee, to include the release of detainees and the meaningful participation of women. This includes a nationwide ceasefire and a safe and neutral environment to allow for the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of refugees. It should pave the way for free and fair elections under UN supervision, ensuring the participation of all Syrians including members of the diaspora.”

Without any reference to the normalization, the statement added: “Only when a credible political process is firmly underway would we consider assisting with the reconstruction of Syria.”

On the other hand, the focus of the G7 was placed on the humanitarian and chemical files, as the ministers condemned “the Assad regime and its backers’ ongoing atrocities against the Syrian people and attempts to disrupt regular and sustained humanitarian access into and within Syria.”

“We call for the full, unhindered humanitarian access into Syria that is vital for alleviating the impact of the crisis. We strongly support the re-authorization of cross-border humanitarian assistance later this year so that those in need can get the assistance they require,” the statement underlined.

The G7 also urged the regime in Syria to adhere to its obligations under UNSCR 2118. It strongly welcomed the decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Conference of the States Parties to suspend Syria’s rights and privileges under the Chemical Weapons Convention, until it completes the steps set out in the OPCW Executive Council Decision of 9 July 2020 and refrains from further use of chemical weapons.

“We are firmly committed to accountability for those responsible for the use of chemical weapons and violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as applicable, and pledge support for the work of appropriate international criminal justice and investigative mechanisms and transitional justice mechanisms,” the statement concluded.

The G7 position on Syria converges with priorities set by the new US administration. Since Biden came to power, his team has requested a review of the Syria policy, which is expected to be completed this month.

It is noteworthy that officials working on the Syrian file in Washington avoid participating in public meetings, in an indication to a break with the previous approach adopted by former US President Donald Trump, which was based on “maximum pressure” on Damascus and "strategic patience", through the use of tools such as sanctions.

The new US priorities in the Syrian file include three axes:

First, the humanitarian dimension, by focusing on the renewal of the Security Council’s decision to provide “cross-border” humanitarian aid on July 10.

Second, the chemical file, by exerting great pressure on Damascus and Moscow to abide by the Russian-US agreement signed between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry at the end of 2013.

Third, the fight against ISIS, by making sure that reducing the US presence in Iraq and the region will not affect the strategy of preventing the re-emergence of the organization.

In these three axes fall the US focus, based on which Washington’s allies in Europe and Arab capitals are acting, until a major development in the US-Russian understanding takes place to revive the “step-by-step” approach, which is currently difficult to achieve amid mounting tension between Washington and Moscow on the one hand, and the Europeans and the Russians on the other.



Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: World in Store for Broader Wars, More Nuclear Countries

Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Former Minister Ghassan Salame speaks to Asharq Al-Awsat. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The world is facing growing uncertainty as the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close. The changes are rapid and old convictions are dropping one after another. To come to terms with this uncertainty, Asharq Al-Awsat sat down with Lebanon’s former Minister of Culture, and former United Nations envoy Ghassan Salame, whose latest publication, “The Temptation of Mars: War and Peace in the 21st Century”, sheds light on which path the world is headed on for decades to come.

Nuclear ambitions

*What has changed in the world system in the first quarter of the 21st century?

Since the end of the Cold War, the world witnessed massive positive change, such as a drop in military spending, nuclear warheads and military bases in foreign countries. The Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and the United States closed several of its military bases in the Philippines and Central America. Work at the United Nations and several international agencies was also revived.

However, the situation was flipped on its head when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 because the invasion had no legal basis – certainly not from the UN Security Council – and world powers opposed it.

Moreover, the US played the biggest role in establishing the international order since 1945, starting with the UN, international funds and other organizations. So, if this country allowed itself to violate the rules it helped put in place, what’s stopping other countries from doing the same? And this is indeed what happened: Russia entered Georgia and Moldova and then Ukraine for the first time, and again for a second time. Other countries followed suit where they resorted to force to achieve their goals.

As a result, we witnessed a gradual growth in military budgets and nuclear countries, such as Russia, the US and France, began to gradually expand their nuclear arsenal. China is aiming to double its nuclear warheads from 1,500 to 3,000 by 2030.

Non-nuclear countries are meanwhile seeking to obtain them. Some 20 countries are capable of becoming nuclear in one year and I believe some will do so.

If the lack of trust between major powers, including the US, China and others, continues then the tensions will persist and escalate. Just look at how Russia changed its nuclear doctrine and Israeli officials called for bombing Gaza with a nuclear bomb. Such statements could not have been uttered in the 20 years before that.

Comprehensive South

*Will the “comprehensive South” play a role in restoring balance in the global order?

Certainly, but it will take time. Let us take a look at the scene. We have the NATO alliance which has no other equal in the world. When Russia started to move against Georgia and later Ukraine, NATO became more important and neutral European countries, such as Sweden and Finland, previously opposed to joining the alliance, have asked to become a part of it. So, this alliance mainly brings together western countries.

There is no other alliance that is similar to it across the globe. So, there is an imbalance between the West and the rest of the world because the West is reliant on an integrated alliance. There is a feeling among other countries, such as China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and India, that they are not getting their share in international organizations and that their opinions, demands and interests do not get the same attention because they are not part of an integrated alliance or unified bloc.

This is why organizations, such as the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, were formed. These groups are still in their early stages of development and they are also victims of contrasting interests: China wants more countries to join the BRICS, while Russia doesn’t. China is speaking of an integrated global south, while Russia doesn’t want to lump itself in that group.

Furthermore, members of these groups have differences between them, such as India and China’s border disputes. The BRICS has not, and will not, in the near future transform into anything like NATO unless it sets a doctrine for itself. NATO is formed of countries that enjoy similar political systems. It is based on a free economic market and liberal constitutional system. These features don’t exist in the BRICS countries.

China and the US

*Where is the rivalry between China and the US headed? Will the years to come lead us to a bipolarity?

It is wrong to believe that China and the US are already in bipolarity. Bipolarity is a project that started 15 years ago. The US does not like multiple poles. It knows that it won’t be able to retain a large number of its allies if it were the sole pole in the world. Washington is most at ease in a bipolar world where it holds the upper hand and where fierce competition makes its allies take its side.

Between 2006 and 2007, when US President Geore W. Bush was in power, the deep state and political elite in the US sought a new rival and believed that China could be it. So, efforts got underway to form the bipolar world and for China to become the main strategic competitor. Of course, China was very comfortable with this.

When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the first foreign dignitary he met was the president of China, not of Russia or France. This elevates China’s status. So, China has become embroiled in this American project to establish a bipolar world. The project is still facing some major resistance from several countries. The question is: Will Russia, India, Brazil and others accept this bipolarity? I believe that several major countries are wary of this bipolarity because it will curb their political and diplomatic freedoms.

Tectonic shifts in the Arab world

*The Arab world is witnessing tectonic shifts, most notably with the ouster of the Syrian regime. Will the Arab world remain this fragmented?

What you are asking has to do with the conditions for political stability. Why are some countries and regions politically stable and others are constantly witnessing revolutions and lack of security?

There are several explanations for this. The common answer is the absence of the state of law, and representation of the people and their involvement in political decisions. These elements provide stability. This is the liberal explanation. Some would say that the liberal reading applies to advanced countries with low populations, not backward ones with large populations where stability can only be imposed through the forceful application of the law.

I believe the Arab world is experiencing a phase that does not allow stability. First, we have the vast inequality in incomes between neighboring countries. This will lead the poorest countries to demand that the wealthier ones share their wealth.

Other factors are the population explosion, people moving from rural to urban areas and the lack of new job opportunities. Syria, for example, has several factors that do not lead to stability: desertification, water scarcity, drop in agricultural production and a population explosion. I think Syria is the third country in the world in terms of population growth, people moving to urban areas and lack of job opportunities. Syria needs 300,000 job opportunities each year and they are mostly unavailable. I’m not even talking about politics, sectarianism, oppression and other issues.