Where were the Arabs in Moscow’s Meeting which was dedicated to Arab issue?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Many of the Arab nationalists who are divided in their position towards the war on Syria have a common question entitled “Where were the Arabs in Moscow Meeting, knowing that the issue belongs to the Arabs?” the question includes a suggestive protesting that the Arabs here, in this case which belongs to the war on Syria and its future and at the presence of Russia and Iran are far, and their presence is exploited by the non-Arabs who share and negotiate on them, but the question surely will not proposed when there is an American-Russian-French meeting not due to the confident in the Russian, but to pay attention to the feelings of the American and the French. The question remains and worth an answer.

Answering the question with a question reveals that silliness is one of the permissible techniques in the debate; the question becomes invalid if Mohammed Bin Salman or Ahmad Abou Gheith were present since they are the Arab figures who are supposed to be candidates and to attend or that their presence was the goal of the question? Is not the presence of Ahmad Abou Al Gheith and Bin Salman an expression of the maturity of Turkey to get out of the war on Syria and to search for a role in the system of the political solution and the war on terrorism, a reverse expression of granting the forces of the war more opportunities of disruption as long as the position which is presented by both of them is apparent from their statements, articles, the positions of close media which condemn the Turkish transition from the choice of war towards describing it with treason?

What is left is that Syria must attend to meet the demand of those who ask or those who are truthful in seeing an Arab presence in dealing with an Arab issue, so is it permissible to attend?  Is its presence a strength or a weakness to the Arab issue itself? The negotiation by the Syrian country about matters that are related to its sovereignty and its future is an unacceptable sovereign concession and unacceptable abandonment of independence, while the agreement of the countries which are involved in a war on its territory, knowing that among them who is an ally and who is an enemy in order to coordinate the interventions in search for what is appropriate and to search for its commons at its absence does not grant these meetings legitimacy, but only through what is reported as outcome by the allies to the Syrian country devoting them with sovereign decisions issued by it as the amnesty for those who carry weapons, or the formation of a delegation to negotiate with an opposite delegation from the opposition or other similar decisions.

The negotiation is not bad surely, only the absurdist suppose wars that do not end with negotiation, the victory for which Syria and its allies aim is not culminated without a negotiation  that lifts the blockade, reopens the embassies, opens the gates of oil market for the Syrian production , and opens the West banks for the Syrian commercial credits. These are the revenues of victory on the Syrian people, which the country is supposed to seek to achieve them, but it is impossible to achieve them without negotiation, the negotiation has timing and conditions. The timing depends on the recognition of the front of enemy of the defeat and despair from the continuation of their war. The terms are translation of that desperation in engaging in settlements that end the war and open the path of the political solution for Syria, this requires an indirect negotiation that is run by the allies where Syria is absent, but it is their reference in saying the final word.

The Arabs whom their presence will be a benefit and a good for the Arab issue, which is no longer represented by any of the Arab governments except Syria, or at least as it represents were present in Moscow Meeting where the Russian and the Iranian tell the Turkish the terms put by Syria the sovereign country to accept a negotiation with groups that work under the Turkish mantle. It is the announcement of the priority by the Turks of the war on terrorism instead of the slogan to overthrow the regime; was not this speech heard by those who ask?

Possibly, the Arabs can attend negotiations that are related to the future of Palestine other than selling it and selling the dignity of its people, not to attend as they were at the Security Council affecting the Libyans badly, not to attend to repeat the matter with Syria, where Russia and China were the only Arab voice, not to attend as they were at the Security Council ten years ago to blame the Israeli for its inability to continue the war on the resistance and crushing it, while Syria was the voice of the Arabs in the field with the resistance alone. Iran through its supporting the resistance is more Arab than many Arab governments.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,