The United Nations has announced that Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister and a veteran UN diplomat, will replace Kofi Annan as the new UN-Arab League special envoy to Syria.
The appointment was announced a day after the UN decided to terminate its observer mission in Syria, which was part of Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan.
On August 2, Annan announced that he had decided to step down from the post at the end of the month due to lack of support at the UN Security Council and the increasing militarization of the conflict in Syria.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry expressed regret over the resignation and said the country is still committed to the peace plan negotiated by Annan.
Meanwhile West and its regional allies are actively playing a part in destabilizing Syria’s situation by sending armed terrorists to the country.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Professor Lawrence Davidson with the Westchester University to further discuss the issue. What follows is a rough transcript of the interview.
The UNSMIS [the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria] mission in Syria has come to an end and already we are seeing incursions by Turkey into the country, some point out that the lack of a UN presence is going to give the West and its allies an open invitation for military intervention. Do you see it that way?
Well, I think that military intervention started long before this and I do not think that the UN position in Syria ever really halted it or slowed it down.
So at least the Western powers, the United States and Great Britain among others; are determined to essentially bring down the Assad regime. It is exactly what the Russians and the Chinese were trying to prevent at the internationalization of this struggle. And so not being able to do it through the UN, they do it surreptitiously by aiding the rebel forces and this has been going on for a very, very long time.
The reports of spying missions being carried out from a NATO base and the involvement of the British spies does show that there is involvement from the West as you have just pointed out, in the unrest in Syria, and that more than many had previously gauged.
Now it is very reminiscent of Libya, is not it when the CIA and the British spies operating on the ground, way before the no-fly zone was imposed?
Right, I mean I think that the difference here is that you do not have Russians or Chinese acquiescent in this sort of thing, as you did in Libya and so if there is an attempt to impose a no-fly zone, I think that you are going to have a very, very difficult diplomatic situation.
I do not think that the Russians and the Chinese are going to stand still for this, I think that they understand that Syria is a step and if the Syrian regime falls, Iran will suffer even more pressure, you would see, as you have already seen, intervention by underground forces, if you will, or anti-government forces that have links with Israel or the United States or Britain or what have you, that will multiply itself and it does not matter who is elected as president, that will multiply itself.
So it is really important, I think, that the Syrian situation not be resolved on the basis of foreign intervention but it just spreads.
Well, a new UN-Arab League envoy has now been named though and Lakhdar Brahimi seems to want to stick with Kofi Anna’s six-point peace plan.
But with UN monitors no longer in Syria and uncooperative insurgent movement and a very stubborn West, what is Brahimi’s role exactly?
Well, I do not think that he has a role, I mean it is a symbolic effort, if you will. He is, you know, his decision is not to take a side, if you will, because as a UN envoy, I mean how can he take a side? He is not supposed to take a side.
He is supposed to look for some sort of settlement here but he is not taking a side as already made him unacceptable to the rebels.
So essentially and I said this before, one of the problems here is that neither side can win. That the government does not have the military power and the strategic power, I guess, to essentially suppress the rebellion.
And one of the reasons they do not, is because the rebellion is being continuously fed weapons from the outside.
On the other hand the insurgents are too factionalized, too divided to be able to overthrow the government.
And so you have this sort of meat grinder kind of scenario where it just goes on and on and on and on and a name calling on both sides and the civilian population suffers more and more and there is no end to it.