Borrell: Russia Not Invited to Syria Brussels Conference Because of Aggression on Ukraine

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. AFP
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. AFP
TT

Borrell: Russia Not Invited to Syria Brussels Conference Because of Aggression on Ukraine

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. AFP
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. AFP

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told Asharq Al-Awsat in an interview that the European Union holds onto its three “red lines” which involve not contributing to Syria’s reconstruction, not removing sanctions and not re-establishing full diplomatic ties with Damascus “until a genuine and comprehensive political transition is firmly under way in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.”

“The EU policy positions have not changed since the behavior of the Assad regime is not changing,” said Borrell, adding that the EU continues to help Syrians inside and outside the country. “Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, the European Union and its Member States have been the largest donors of humanitarian and resilience assistance to Syria and the region with € 27.4 billion.”

Borrell spoke on the eve of the two-day donor conference that is set to be held in Brussels on Monday.

“This conference is traditionally the main pledging event of the year for the Syrian people. What is different this year is that it takes place on the backdrop of an unprecedented military aggression directly in EU’s neighborhood. But we want to show to Syrian people that despite the Russian aggression against Ukraine, we remain committed to continue supporting also the Syrian people and host communities in neighboring countries, and we are not forgetting them,” he said.

Borrell confirmed that Russia was not invited to the conference.

“We are inviting those partners who have a genuine interest to contribute to peace in the world and to help victims of conflict. Through its aggression on Ukraine, Russia has proven that it is not sharing this interest,” he said.

Here is the full text of the interview carried out on Saturday.

1- What do you expect of the donor conference in Brussels on May 9 and 10? How does this one differ from the previous ones?

This conference is traditionally the main pledging event of the year for the Syrian people. What is different this year is that it takes place on the backdrop of an unprecedented military aggression directly in EU’s neighborhood. But we want to show to Syrian people that despite the Russian aggression against Ukraine, we remain committed to continue supporting also the Syrian people and host communities in neighboring countries, and we are not forgetting them. With the Brussels Conference this year, we want to ensure sustained international attention and support for them.

We have hosted the Brussels Conference since 2017. The objectives are to reassert the international community’s commitment towards Syrians and towards a negotiated political solution to the conflict in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, to continue mobilizing much needed financial support to meet the needs of Syrian refugees and their host communities in neighboring countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue with civil society.

2- Why did you not invite the Russian government to the Brussels conference?

As host of the Conference, we are inviting those partners who have a genuine interest to contribute to peace in the world and to help victims of conflict. Through its aggression on Ukraine, Russia has proven that it is not sharing this interest.

3- The conference comes after the European Union renewed economic sanctions against Damascus. Does it have any effect on Brussels conference?

These are two different things, they are not linked and are not in contradiction. The Conference aims to raise funds for the Syrian people – mainly the refugees and internally displaced. The sanctions target the regime for its continued violent repression against the civilian population. Our sanctions are a clear signal that the repressive policies of the Assad regime against the civilian population of Syria, including the expropriation of land for political purposes, as well as the use of chemical weapons, are considered unacceptable by the European Union. They are also sending a message to the supporters of the Syrian regime that their support to the regime would come at a cost.

EU sanctions are not targeted against the Syrian people, do not prohibit the export of food, medicines or medical equipment and a number of exceptions are foreseen for humanitarian purposes. This shows that we care for Syrian people and the Brussels Conference is only reinforcing this commitment to help them in any way we can.

4- The EU after last meeting in Brussels, have said that they are committed to the three No’s: no to contribution to the reconstruction, to lifting of the sanctions, no formulations [“normalization”?] without success of the political process in Syria. Are these conditions still valid?

The EU policy positions have not changed since the behavior of the Assad regime is not changing. The EU will not re-establish full diplomatic relations with Syria, we will not start working on reconstruction until a genuine and comprehensive political transition is firmly under way in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

As long as there is no progress in the implementation of the relevant UN resolutions for Syria, the European Union will maintain its sanctions regime as an additional means of pressure on the Syrian regime to change its behavior.

At the same time, we will continue our large-scale humanitarian work in Syria and the region, in support of the Syrian people, wherever they reside as well as their host communities in neighboring countries. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, the European Union and its Member States have been the largest donors of humanitarian and resilience assistance to Syria and the region with € 27.4 billion.

5- Moscow and Damascus are asking to put money in “early recovery” projects. What's the EU position on this?

We do not work with the regime inside Syria, in line with our position on no relations with the Syrian regime and no reconstruction until a genuine and comprehensive political transition is firmly under way in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

However, the European Union is supporting the Syrian people directly suffering from the conflict, to build their future. We are actively fostering local initiatives in Syria where EU parameters and red lines are respected. We are supporting and empowering civilians across the country, working on education, health, livelihoods, building social cohesion, demining. These activities implemented at grassroots level aim at addressing the current needs of the population while also preparing the ground for Syria’s future for all Syrians.

We are also supporting the restauration of a dialogue and social cohesion among Syrians inside Syria and the region after eleven years of conflict. Supporting the development of a strong civil society with a specific emphasis on Syrian women and youth is essential in this regard. This is also the reason why the Brussels Conferences put a strong emphasis on the dialogue with civil society. Together with the Syrian people, they are the actor of change for the future of Syria.

6- What is your position on the efforts of the UN Envoy to Syria Mr. Pedersen on Constitutional reforms and on his “step-for-step" proposal?

The European Union fully supports the efforts of UN Special Envoy Pedersen to make progress on all elements of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including the work of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva and the Special Envoy’s “steps-for-steps” approach. We discussed this and other related issues at Ministerial level at the meeting of EU Foreign Affairs minister in January, which was also attended by UNSE Pedersen.



Fakhri Karim: I Conveyed Talabani’s Advice to Assad on Terrorists

Fakhri Karim (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Fakhri Karim (Asharq Al-Awsat)
TT

Fakhri Karim: I Conveyed Talabani’s Advice to Assad on Terrorists

Fakhri Karim (Asharq Al-Awsat)
Fakhri Karim (Asharq Al-Awsat)

The late Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, excelled at delivering messages subtly. In private meetings, he spoke more freely than in public statements or interviews. His chief advisor, Fakhri Karim, often joined these discussions.

Luncheons were lavish, showing Talabani's respect for different opinions, though he rarely followed doctors’ advice.

Talabani believed that Iranian leaders were smart and hoped they wouldn’t try to control Baghdad from Tehran, citing the failed attempt to manage Beirut from Damascus.

He noted that Iraq’s independent spirit makes it hard for the country to follow the US, Iran, or Türkiye. Talabani also admitted giving refuge to 80 Iraqi officers who had fought against Iran, after they were targeted by certain groups.

Talabani praised Syria’s late President Hafez al-Assad for his invaluable support, providing accommodation and passports.

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Karim revealed he had warned President Bashar al-Assad, on behalf of Talabani, that militants allowed into Iraq to fight US forces might later turn against Syria.

This, Karim noted, did happen.

After the Israeli invasion of Beirut in 1982, Karim relocated to Damascus. There, he expanded his Al-Mada organization, focusing on publishing, translation, and organizing book fairs, alongside his political activities.

This allowed him to build relationships with top civilian and military officials.

In 2000, after Bashar al-Assad came to power, he met with Karim.

“I felt Assad was eager to listen, especially given my connections with many intellectuals,” recalled Karim.

“I told him dissenting voices exist but are mostly positive. You talk about modernization and renewal; this is a chance for some openness, even in elections,” Karim said he told Assad.

“Do you think anyone could really compete with you, given your position as the Baath Party's leader with all its resources?” Karim questioned.

Karim then discussed the situation of Syrian Kurds with Assad, noting that many lack identification papers, even basic travel documents. He also mentioned seeing historic Kurdish areas in the Khabur region with their names changed to Arabic, which causes sensitivities.

“I am not satisfied with this situation. Rest assured, this issue is on my agenda, and you will hear positive news about it,” Karim cited Assad as saying at the time.

In a later meeting, after the change in Iraq, Karim met Assad several times.

On one occasion, Karim recalls conveying Talabani’s greetings and concerns about armed fighters moving into Iraq and the dangers this posed to both Iraq and possibly Syria.

“We have deployed large forces to secure the borders, but what can we do? There are tribes and smugglers,” Assad complained about the situation.

“I told President Assad that as Fakhri Karim, I couldn’t share with the Americans what I know. I assured him that terrorists enter Iraq from a specific location I’m familiar with, not from all borders,” Karim recounted to Asharq Al-Awsat.

“I also noted that Syria tightly controls its airspace, shooting down any foreign aircraft,” he added.

Assad then responded to Karim and said: “We’re prepared, let us know what we can do.”

In reality, Damascus was worried because there were reports suggesting that Syria’s Baath regime could be the next target for the US army at its borders. Additionally, Damascus was concerned about the sectarian divisions—Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish—in dealing with Iraq and the potential impact on Syria.

Repairing Kurdish Relations

Karim has spent years working on repairing the relationship between Kurdish leaders Talabani and Masoud Barzani.

This history began with the split that gave rise to the ‘Patriotic Union of Kurdistan’ from the ‘Kurdistan Democratic Party.’

Despite bloody conflicts and external meddling, Karim believes Kurdish leaders unify in the face of danger to their people and region, a pattern he expects to continue.

Karim believes that the Kurdish leadership, symbolized by Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, made a big mistake at the beginning by focusing only on regional issues, ignoring Baghdad’s affairs.

He thinks they should have aimed for a federal democratic system that respects citizenship rights.

Karim pointed out that without a unified Iraq, the region’s rights would be uncertain. He also criticized the Shiite-Kurdish alliance, which he sees as odd.

Additionally, he mentioned mistakes in failing to unify regional institutions and increasing corruption, with party interests often trumping competence in appointments.

Asked about the personal bond between Talabani and Barzani, Karim said: “Both have moved past their tough history, but they haven’t done enough for the future.”

“I want to highlight an act by Barzani that shows his character. When Talabani was sick, Barzani made it clear to anyone thinking of harming Talabani or his family that there would be consequences,” he revealed.

“This isn’t hearsay, it’s firsthand,” affirmed Karim.

“Barzani also refused to discuss the presidency or a successor during Talabani’s illness. I personally organized a gathering for Talabani’s family, where Barzani reassured them, ‘I’m here for you, I’m family.’ His words moved everyone, showing a strong emotional connection,” he added.

When asked about Barzani’s character, Karim said: “He's been a long-time friend, and our relationship has been politically aligned and personally warm from the start.”

“I see him as a loyal friend, and he's shown that loyalty on multiple occasions. He’s smart, decisive, and listens carefully, often changing his mind after thorough consideration,” he noted.

“Once Barzani commits to something, he finds it hard to go back on his word. There was a moment during negotiations with Saddam Hussein when he stood firm despite my advice to reconsider,” recalled Karim.

Regarding the aftermath of the independence referendum, Karim believes that the negative turn in the political landscape began during Nouri al-Maliki’s tenure.

Al-Maliki’s attempts to shift alliances and his refusal to compromise exacerbated tensions.

The referendum itself wasn’t the problem; rather, it was exploited by some to punish the Kurdistan Region.

However, Karim emphasized that holding referendums is a citizen’s right, and the purpose of the Kurdistan referendum was to affirm this right, not to declare independence.