A
regime that
continue to
kill
civilians,
destroy
cities, use
heavy
weaponry,
including
weapons of
mass
destruction,
does not seem
to be in fact
committed to
not only the
spirit but the
letter of the
Geneva
communique.
The second
demand was in
fact ask the
SC to help us
find access
for
humanitarian
assistance.
Most of the
work of the UN
agencies is
done through
the Syrian
regime, and we
are concerned
that there
should be more
ways,
cross-border
maybe,
assistance to
reach those in
the liberated
areas. We
stressed this
question so
much to
highlight the
humanitarian
catastrophe in
Syria. Even by
the UN figure
we have almost
7 million
Syrians who
are either
refugees or
displaced in
Syria, in
addition to
those of
course the
fallen heroes,
those who have
lost their
lives, over
100,000
according to
the UN SG
yesterday.
And
the third
point was, we
ask the SC to
refer the
regime to the
ICC. That was
a specific
demand, in
fact, we put
before the SC.
The
last point, as
far as Geneva
is concerned,
we were very
clear that we
have supported
all
international
and regional
initiatives to
find a
political
solution for
the Syrian
crisis, and
for the
specific point
of Geneva. We
said we are in
fact committed
to negotiating
a negotiated
settlement
that would
implement
Geneva I, that
would create a
transitional
government
with full
executive
authorities.
That includes
the security
and military
areas, which
in our
understanding
does not leave
room for Assad
in the future
of Syria.
The
last point was
in fact,
mentioned in
the - can I
see that -
again to
appeal to the
international
community to
do something
about those
areas under
siege. As we
speak, the
regime
continues to
bombard and
attack
civilians in
places like
Homs, like the
suburbs of
Damascus,
(inaudible)
everywhere.
And
again, one
last point is
made related
to Russia,
which is a
member of this
council. We
ask them to
stop providing
the political
and the
military
support for
this criminal
regime to
continue its
crimes against
the Syrian
people. That's
a summary of
the statement,
thank you.
Q: The
Russian
ambassador
indicated that
what you were
actually
proposing
before a
Geneva
conference
were in effect
preconditions
and that one
of the
problems in
getting the
conference off
the ground
were divisions
within the
opposition. A
third point is
that I believe
your
predecessor
said that the
coalition
would not go
to Geneva
until the
military
imbalance had
been
rectified.
Could you
address this
whole issue of
preconditions?
Ahmad
al-Jarba: For
sure that from
our
understanding
to Geneva that
it's going to
be the
transitional
government
with full
power,
executive
transitional
government
with full
power. This is
not
precondition
for Geneva or
any new
conditions. It
was Geneva I.
It is what we
understood
from Geneva I
and what all
the countries
understood
also. And we
don't think
that any full
power
government
will not
control the
intelligence
and army's
forces. That's
what we told
the member of
the national
council now
and that's how
we see Geneva,
and now we
have some
communication
with other
friends in the
international
community to
explain to
them how we
think Geneva
is. And about
the opposition
and who will
represent the
opposition in
Geneva in this
case, we think
that the
condition
after the new
extend was
that there was
a new 15
members that
represent the
Free Syrian
Army and the
new 14 members
inside the
coalition that
represent the
revolutionary
forces on the
ground, and
there is 25
members from
the democratic
forces. We
think now that
the coalition
is
representing
all the Syrian
revolution and
all the forces
inside - the
political and
armed forces.
But the way
maybe how in
Moscow they
think maybe
any diversity
will be
separated and
the people
they should be
all united
like in
Russia.
Q: The
Russians and
the Iranians,
Hezbollah,
even from Iraq
the regime is
getting arms.
One of the
reasons you're
here is to ask
for arms for
the Free
Syrian Army
and give
guarantees
that they
won't fall
into the hands
of extremists.
What
assurances did
you give? What
promises did
you get about
arming the
Free Syrian
Army?
The
question was:
arming the
opposition and
guarantees
that it would
not fall into
the wrong
hands.
Mr.
al-Jarba spoke
about the
coalition's
effort to in
fact lobby for
support and
mentioned a
definite visit
that the
President and
his delegation
undertook to
friendly
countries to
in fact
provide the xx
army with the
needed support
in the
military
arena. As far
as guarantees;
this is one of
the issues
that the FSA
army,
specifically
the SMC, the
Supreme
Military
Command, has
been working
very hard to
ensure it
would not
happen. Mr.
al-Jarba
stated clearly
that some of
those
extremists, in
fact all of
those
extremists, do
not recognize
the SMC. So
how can the
SMC provide
any kind of
support to
those entities
that consider
sometimes the
SMC not only
as a rival but
also as an
enemy? The SMC
is the most
concerned, in
fact, that
these weapons
will not go
into the wrong
hands.
From a
serious point
of view, both
the SMC and
the Coalition
are concerned
about the rise
of radicalism
and extremism
and they
consider that
it's a serious
threat, they
take it very
seriously, and
they don't
want to make
the situation
any worse.
Q: How
can you agree
to go to peace
talks without
changing the
balance of
power on the
ground? I
understand the
difference
between the
political and
the armed
wings, but how
important is
it for the
balance of
power to go
into the hands
of the rebels.
And, can you
explain
whether there
is anyone
inside the
Assad
government who
you would be
willing to go
into a
transitional
government
with?
(Person
A)
The
problem is
today that the
regime is
targeting only
the areas
under the
control of the
FSA. The xx
regime of all
the areas
under control
of xx and xx
and extremist
groups because
we think that
he's only
fighting us.
There is some
kind of
agreement, we
don't know
how, between
the regime and
the extremist
groups on the
ground. They
are fighting
us, and the
regime is
fighting us
also, in the
xx area. That
makes the
extremist
group stronger
and stronger
everyday
because they
have their own
money sources
and their own
weapon
sources. We
have nothing.
We have only
the
international
community help
and the Arabic
country help.
If they don't
help us well
by the proper
weapons that
we need to
help us
organize
ourselves
better and to
make ourselves
stronger, the
situation in
Syria will be
stronger and
very dangerous
in all the
areas.
Najib
Ghadbian: I
think the
designation of
who is
acceptable
from the other
side is very
clear: those
who have not
committed
crimes against
humanity
against the
Syrian people.
Q: Is
there anyone
left?
(not
sure: person
A)
Actually,
there
is a driver.
Najib
Ghadbian: We
would actually
like to talk
to the Human
Rights Council
on this. Even
the Russians,
I think, if
they could
identify those
members. But
you're right.
The longer
this conflict
goes on, the
more difficult
it's going to
be to find
those. But, in
the end I
think there
are some
mid-level
officers who
are not as
implicated in
this as the
top layers,
let's call it
the criminal
layers, even
by the
international
community, the
human rights
council.
Q:
View of the
situation on
the
battlefield?
There is a
perception the
tide has
turned and
Assad is
slowly
winning.
Ahmad
al-Jarba: This
situation has
only been for
three months
until now.
After Assad
involved the
revolutionary
guards and
Hezbollah and
some extremist
gangs from
Iraq and came
with weapons
and fully
armed. In the
past, we were
only as
revolutionists
in the FSA on
the ground
facing the
regime. Now
the game has
changed after
these elements
joined the
story.
There
is a new
strategy now
in the FSA
command and we
think that
within one
month you will
see a lot of
changes on the
ground.
Q:
Back to the
meeting
yesterday with
the American
delegation:
what did you
say to SoS
Kerry, and did
anything he
say offer any
encouragement?
Burhan
Ghalioun: We
think that our
realign with
Washington and
the American
administration
is old and
unique because
they support
the Syrian
people and the
Syrian
revolution.
Sec Kerry was
very clear
that America
will stand
behind the
Syrian people
and the Syrian
revolution and
they will not
allow the
regime to win
in this fight
with the
Syrian people
But in
the same time,
it was clear
that the
American
administration
was supporting
the Geneva
conference. We
made it very
clear to the
secretary that
we accept
Geneva. The
Syrian
Opposition and
the Syrian
Coalition on
the ground
have accepted
all the
resolutions in
the
international
community
including
Geneva 2.
But,
to get what
the Syrian
people want,
not to go to
Geneva to make
a settlement
with this
regime. We
told the
Americans
clearly that
we don't want
any chairs, or
ministry or
anything. We
don't want
anything. We
want our
people to vote
to live
democracy
dream and to
win this
freedom
battle. We
told him,after
the
announcement
of Geneva 2
the regime
began to use
maximum power,
the maximum
power, in all
deliberated
areas by all
the weapons.
The
open sources
and the founts
from Russia
and and
getting the
militia from
Iraq and Iran
and the
Revolutionary
Guard inside
Syria, all of
this made very
clear that the
regime doesn't
care about any
political
solution.
He
wants to come
to Geneva
after he wins
the battle
with the
Syrian people,
just to say he
won the
battle.
So
that's what we
told Secretary
Kerry, that if
he want really
Geneva to have
a meaning, you
should push on
the Russian,
on Bashar Al
Assad the
regime at
least to stop
using
ballistics
missiles and
chemical
weapons
against his
own people
just at least
to make Geneva
have a
meaning.
So
stopping using
the chemical
weapon and
ballistics
weapon and all
the heavy--
does not mean
to stop the
war because
you know that
Bashar Al
Assad, he will
not a cease
fire, he want
to continue
his fighting,
but at least
to make the
people inside
Syria to feel
a little bit
comfort that
there is
something
happening on
the ground.
And
lifting the
siege from the
cities under
the siege
since 2 years
now and
stopping all
the aids and
all the foods
from the
people…
Allowing
the
aids and the
humanity aids
to go inside
all the cities
under the
siege and the
liberated area
and all the
areas in Syria
who needs
these aids
And we
will need a
clear
statement from
the regime
that he said
that the
opposition and
the
revolutionary
forces on the
ground and the
revolutionists
(?) they are
not
terrorists,
and we are in
the end of
this
delegation,
end of this
conference of
Geneva and end
of this
process there
will be
transitional
government
without Bashar
Al Assad.
Q:
When you met
with Kerry,
you were
asking for
more arms.
Don't you
think more
arms in the
theater will
kill more
civilians? If
you're calling
for ICC to
look into
regime, what
about also
reported
massacres
committed by
opposition?
Ahmad
al-Jarba: For
the first part
of the
question, when
we asking
about weapons,
when we asking
about giving
weapons for
the Free
Syrian Army,
we need these
weapons to
defend our
people, to
defend the
liberated
area, because
the regime is
using air
jets, SCUD
ballistics
missiles, the
tanks, so the
weapons that
we're asking
about is the
anti-air jets
and anti-tanks
to defend our
people and to
defend our
cities, defend
the civilians.
Najib
Ghadbian: As
far as the
ICC, of course
when we called
for referring
the regime to
the ICC, we
are accepting
any
investigation
of those who
committed
crimes against
humanity from
any source,
and I think
that's the
difference
between us and
the other
side. We
condemn any
violations of
international
humanitarian
laws, and we
are going to
be committed
to that in
order to be
credible. That
I think is the
key difference
between us,
again, and the
other side.
Q: Do
you feel
you're any
closer after
these meetings
to Geneva 2?
What are the
obstacles?
Burhan
Ghalioun: We
believe that
this meeting
gave a
momentum to
Geneva again.
And we
are very happy
to hear that
our allies are
in fact
committed --
that they are
committed for
in fact
supporting us.
We see
the obstacles
is the
regime's
commitment, in
fact, to
Geneva 1, so
if they're
willing to
implement
Geneva 1
literally,
there is a
prospect for a
negotiation.
Q:
Russia says
government is
ready to go to
Geneva and the
problem lies
with
opposition.
Are you ready?
What was the
response of
Sec Kerry to
your request
for weapons
quickly?
Ahmad
al-Jarba: The
first question
about Russia
when they said
the regime is
ready to go to
Geneva, so the
regime made a
lot of
statements
that he's
saying there
is no
transitional
government
with full
executive
authority and
even we have
some
information
that even the
Russians, they
are involved
in this to
keep the
military and
intelligence
outside of any
negotiations
and as I
mentioned it
was from the
body of the
Geneva 1 with
the government
with full
authority when
they cleared
these points
and they make
this
commitment we
are ready to
go to Geneva.
So we
think that the
American
administration
actually the
way that they
look to the
Syrian
revolution
it's better to
the Syrian
crisis. Maybe
they are
moving slowly
but they still
good and as
you all know
that General
Dempsey and so
the congress
member that
they had that
they had a new
position from
the arm-- arm
the Free
Syrian Army.
And we think
it's very
important
point and we
talk about all
these cases
with Secretary
Kerry. And we
agreed that
there's
another
meetings will
be in future
to talk about
all the cases
again.
Q:
When we spoke
with Amb
Churkin he
looked like he
asked more
questions than
you asked him
or the SC. Did
you feel like
the Russians
were listening
to you during
the meeting?
Also, as you
know, by
shipping arms
and fighter
into Syria,
both Iran and
Iraq are
breaching UNSC
resolutions.
Did you bring
this to the
table?
Najib
Ghadbian: We
asked one
thing of the
Russians: to
stop giving
weapons to the
Syrian regime
that continued
to be used
against Syrian
people, we
were very
clear about
that. They
have so many
questions
because they
are confused,
they continue
to be
confused, and
that's their
issue, in
fact. That's
the issue with
the whole
Security
Council.
They're trying
to add more
ambiguity to
already clear
Geneva 1,
which is all
about
democratic
transition.
Once they and
the regime are
ready to
accept that, I
think there is
a serious
prospect about
peaceful and
political
solution.